Wednesday, November 9, 2016, from 9:05 am to …...STORMWATER WORK GROUP Wednesday, November 9, 2016, from 9:05 am to 12:10 pm USGS, 934 Broadway, Tacoma WA, 98402 Draft Summary OF

STORMWATER WORK GROUP

Wednesday November 9 2016 from 905 am to 1210 pm USGS 934 Broadway Tacoma WA 98402

Draft Summary OF THE MEETINGrsquoS KEY DISCUSSIONS DECISIONS AND AGREEMENTS

a list of acronyms is provided at the end of the document

ATTENDEES

Work Group members and alternates present and the organizations and caucuses they represent

Cami Apfelbeck (Bainbridge Island) Local Governments and the Work Grouprsquos Chair Jess Archer (ECY EAP)

State Agencies Abby Barnes (WDNR) State Agencies and the Work Grouprsquos Vice Chair Dick Gersib (WSDOT)

State Agencies Shana Joy (WSCC) Agriculture Patrick Moran (USGS) Federal Agencies Ben Parrish

(Covington) Local Governments Kit Paulsen (Bellevue) Local Governments Nancy Rapin (Muckleshoot Indian

Tribe Fisheries) Tribes Jim Simmonds (King Co) Local Governments Connie Sullivan (Puget Soundkeeper

Alliance) Environmental Groups Theresa Thurlow (Federal Way) Local Governments

Invited speakers Karma Anderson (NRCS) Curtis DeGasperi (King Co) Lisa Duriancik (NRCS) Nicole Embertson

(Whatcom Conservation District) Andy James (UW-Tacoma)

Others in attendance Fred Bergdolt (WSDOT) Chris Hall (Ecology SWRO) Jeff Kray (Marten Law PLLC) Sam

Merrick (Ecology SWRO) Chris Montague-Breakwell (Ecology SWRO) Sarah Norberg (Tacoma) Rob Plotnikoff

(TetraTech) Angela Vincent (Ecology SWRO)

Work Group staff Karen Dinicola (ECY WQP) SWG Project Manager and Brandi Lubliner (ECY WQP) RSMP

Coordinator

WORK GROUP DISCUSSES DRAFT AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF MONITORING STRATEGY AND KEY PROGRAMS

Shana Joy of WSCC is both staff and chair of the SWG Agricultural Runoff Subgroup She and NRCS and Whatcom

Conservation District staff presented information about the ldquoConservation Effects Assessment Projectrdquo and ldquoEdge of Field

(EoF) Monitoringrdquo and ldquoDiscovery Farmsrdquo agricultural effectiveness monitoring programs Their presentations will be

posted with this meeting summary In the QampA session following the presentation the speakers also described an

approach called ldquoprecision conservationrdquo that is pulling these three programs together in new targeted areas using

coordinated investments

Each of these programs has benefits and challenges Work group members expressed concern about the confidentiality of

the data collected in these programs and want to be certain that enough data are collected at a large enough scale that it

can be aggregated presented and shared collectively The data and programs overall also seem insufficient to provide a

regional roll-up addressing the monitoring priorities established in our previous recommendations related to this topic It

is also unclear how many agricultural sectors will be addressed by the planned monitoring

Can EoF inform where receiving water monitoring is needed How can the final agricultural runoff strategy leverage EoF

with Intensively Monitored Watersheds and the RSMP

Work group members want to be certain that this strategy is informed by the findings of the 2015 RSMP Puget Lowland

stream monitoring and in particular the results of the WSDA-funded laboratory analysis of 100 additional pesticides at

80 of the RSMP sites Lots of cities and counties and Ecology EAP and USGS also have monitoring programs and data

that are available to provide additional perspective and definition to the plans for this strategy

For next revisions to the implementation plan work group members want to see more definition of who will do the

literature review and what is its scope and scale The literature review should result in more specific research questions

to drive the monitoring The strategy especially needs to articulate how findings of agricultural runoff monitoring will be

used not only by farmers but also by local governments to manage their MS4s and critical areas

Shana will give progress updates at our next work group meetings Work group members want to be certain that the

subgroup takes sufficient time to bring in the necessary detail and people to flesh out a concrete plan for the final strategy

and implementation plan Therefore we expect to delay approval of a final document until our June or September meeting

in 2017

WORK GROUP HEARS INITIAL FINDINGS OF RSMP STREAM DATA ANALYSIS

Brandi Lubliner RSMP Coordinator and Curtis DeGasperi of King County updated work group members on the progress

toward completing the analysis of 2015 RSMP Puget Lowland stream monitoring inside and outside Urban Growth Areas

Their presentation will be posted along with this meeting summary The analysis is focused on answering questions the

SWG identified prior to the project

What percent of streams meet biological water and sediment quality standards for beneficial uses within and

outside urban growth areas (UGAs)

What natural variables correlate with the status of streams within and outside the UGA

What human variables correlate with the status of streams within and outside the UGA

For future RSMP stream monitoring hat water sediment biological and habitat parameters should be carried

forward and at what timing and frequency How should sites be selected

How do the 2015 RSMP findings compare to other sizeable monitoring programs in Puget Sound

The presentation focused on answers to the first three bullets future work will address the last two The talk highlighted

which parameters were rarely (if ever) detected in the water column or sediments and differences between sites inside

UGAs and outside UGAs as well as seasonally Watersediment quality standards were exceeded for metals phthalates

and PCBs but were infrequent overall The team also searched for meaningful benchmarks to compare concentrations for

toxics parameters without official watersediment quality standards Correlating variables included

Natural December precipitation and longitude (which seems to be a proxy for density)

Human development canopy chloride (no intertidal sites were included so this is either from leaky septics or

deicing material) and zinc in sediment

The PSEMP Freshwater Workgroup (FWG) will review and discuss in detail the RSMP Puget Lowland Stream Data

analysis and findings and recommendations for future RSMP monitoring and trends analysis The FWG will also hear

about findings of USGS NAWQA and ECY EAP programs the RSMP is leveraging and changes and adjustments being

made to their programs based on results and new scientific understanding Work group members who want to be included

in those FWG meetings should contact Leska Fore A synopsis of these discussions will be shared at SWG meetings and

work group members will review and discuss all RSMP recommendations that come out of the workgroups and

subgroups

WORK PLAN UPDATES TO BE APPROVED IN JANUARY

Subgroupsrsquo proposals for updating our work plan for 2017-2018 were included in a document distributed with the agenda

for this meeting In addition to the plans included in the draft plan work group members expressed interest in

Providing comment on Ecologyrsquos draft permit language for Special Condition S8 Monitoring and Assessment

Hearing about findings of other monitoring programs (and in particular Ecology EAP programs the RSMP is

leveraging and also USGS NAWQA) and changes and adjustments being made to their programs based on results

and new scientific understanding

Karen will add these topics to the work plan and to the topics planned for our scheduled meetings in 2017-2018 For some

topics the primary conversation might take place at another PSEMP Workgroup meeting or at one of our Subgroup

meetings with high level summaries presented at our meetings Work group members are encouraged to review the

subgroup member list and ask Karen to add them to additional subgroups for meeting agendas and notes

WORK GROUP UPDATED ON RSMP IMPLEMENTATION AND OVERSIGHT

RSMP Coordinator Brandi Lubliner and PRO-Committee chair Ben Parrish provided a detailed update on RSMP

activities contracting decisions and upcoming projects The details are listed in the meeting agenda The PRO-C agreed

to do another ldquoreport cardrdquo evaluation of Ecology as RSMP administrator in preparation for permit reissuance

WORK GROUP UPDATED ON PSEMP AND PSP ACTIVITIES RELATED TO OUR WORK

Andy James briefly described the new process for developing the implementation strategies for stormwater actions related

to the B-IBI and Toxics in Fish vital sign indicator targets Work group members are invited to participate in these Inter-

Disciplinary Teams Andy is leading the work on factsheets background summaries synthesis papers (generalizations

supported by evidence) alternatives analysis and the monitoring plan for the Stormwater Strategic Initiative and would

appreciate work group members volunteering to provide review comments on those documents The timeline for

completion of this work is April 2017 to inform funding decisions in the next cycle

George Tuttle of WSDA will be giving a presentation about other agricultural monitoring findings at the PSEMP Toxics

Workgroup meeting tomorrow November 10 Work group members are encouraged to attend in person or via the webex

We will invite George to present the RSMP data at one of our future meetings

FUTURE MEETING DATES AND PROPOSED DISCUSSION TOPICS

At all of our meetings we will

Hear updates from the RSMP Coordinator and PRO-Committee on RSMP implementation

Continue to discuss recommendations for RSMP implementation and oversight outside the permit structure

Hear from our subgroups about the status of implementing our current work plan

Hear updates from the PSEMP Steering Committee and other workgroups and Action Agenda coordination and

Determine messages and timing for the next SWG Reporter issue

At our next meeting on Wednesday January 18 2017 from 900 am to 1200 pm at the USGS Office in Tacoma we will

Accept nominations for SWG Chair and Vice Chair for a two-year term beginning in March 2017

Approve updates to our work plan for 2017-2018

Hear updates on progress toward a detailed implementation plan for agricultural runoff monitoring and

Discuss the recommended data fields and proposed budget for future RSMP Source ID work

Work group meetings in 2017 are scheduled on January 18 March 15 June 7 September 13 and November 15

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS MEETING SUMMARY

B-IBI ndash Benthic index of biotic integrity

BMP ndash Best management practice

ECY SWRO - Washington Dept of Ecology Southwest Regional Office

ECY EAP ndash Washington Dept of Ecologyrsquos Environmental Assessment Program

ECY WQP ndash Washington Dept of Ecologyrsquos Water Quality Program

FWG ndash (PSEMP) Freshwater Workgroup

MS4 ndash Municipal separate storm sewer system

NAWQA ndash National Water Quality Assessment

NRCS ndash Natural Resources Conservation Service

PCBs ndash Polychlorinated biphenyls

PRO-C or PRO-Committee ndash Pooled Resources Oversight Committee

PSEMP ndash Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program

PSP ndash Puget Sound Partnership

RSMP ndash Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program

SWG ndash Stormwater Work Group

UGA ndash Urban Growth Area

USGS ndash US Geological Survey

WDNR ndash Washington Dept of Natural Resources

WSCC ndash Washington State Conservation Commission

WSDA ndash Washington Dept of Agriculture

WSDOT ndash Washington Dept of Transportation

Final Report and Implementation Plan - DRAFT

Presented to the Puget Sound Stormwater Work Group

Agricultural Runoff Subgroup 1112016

This final report and implementation plan reiterates recommendations provided to the PS

SWG regarding agricultural stormwater effectiveness monitoring cropland nutrients and

sediment pesticides and bacteria and nutrients from livestock operations Implementation

strategies recommended herein are intended to address the majority of the recommendations

and leverage currently available programs and resources Coordinated pursuit of funding

opportunities and coordinated investment of available resources is needed to maximize the

potential for success

Table of Contents Introduction and Background

Recommendations 3

Agricultural Stormwater Effectiveness Monitoring 3

Cropland Nutrients and Sediment Monitoring 4

Pesticides 4

Bacteria and Nutrients 4

Implementation Strategies 5

Literature Review 5

Collaboration with Ongoing Research and Monitoring Efforts 5

Conservation Effects Assessment Project 6

Discovery Farms 7

Edge of Field Monitoring 7

Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Programs 8

Precision Conservation Approach 8

Funding Needs and Opportunities

Conclusion and Next Steps 9

Appendices 10

Detailed Recommendations 11

Table of Funding Opportunities 11

Conservation Effects Assessment Project Information 11

Discover Farms Fact Sheet 11

Introduction and Background

The Puget Sound Stormwater Work Group (PS SWG) commissioned the formation of the

Agricultural Runoff Subgroup (ARS) in early 2011 to consider expanding the 2010 Stormwater

Monitoring and Assessment Strategy for Puget Sound to address agricultural issues building

upon the Recommendations for Municipal Stormwater Permit Monitoring and other ongoing

efforts The subgroup first met in April 2011 and met regularly on a bi-monthly schedule except

for a hiatus in activity between July 2014 and March 2015 due to staffing changes at the State

Conservation Commission (SCC) Since March 2015 SCC staff has worked with ARS members

to produce this report and implementation plan in smaller group work sessions

Members of the subgroup including those regular and periodic participants in select discussions

are City of Everett Snohomish Conservation District Skagit County USDA Natural Resources

Conservation Service Whidbey Island Conservation District Department of Ecology WA

Department of Agriculture Whatcom Conservation District Skagit Conservation District

Western Washington Agriculture Washington Dairy Federation Mason Conservation District

EPA Futurewise Bainbridge Island Taylor Aquatic Science Thurston County Clallam

Conservation District Samish Indian Nation People for Puget Sound and the Washington State

Conservation Commission

The process the ARS followed to make decisions or reach consensus was slightly different for

each set of recommendations however decisions were achieved via consensus of those present at

the meetings The decisions (recommendations) were sent out for review to all subgroup

members Questions from subgroup members not present at the meetings were posed to the

group and answeredaddressed via email All of the recommendations were agreed to by the

ARS without dissent

The PS SWG tasked the ARS specifically to

Review the small streams and nearshore status and trends monitoring parameter lists and

consider adding agricultural pesticides and or other parameters for analysis at status and

trends sites located outside Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries

Design a regional source identification and diagnostic monitoring strategy for agricultural

issues

Design effectiveness studies for agricultural BMPs

Describe how the monitoring might be funded and conducted (implementation plan)

The ARS has completed the first three tasks outlined above and has provided a set of

recommendations to the PS SWG regarding pesticides agriculture stormwater effectiveness

monitoring cropland nutrients and sediment monitoring and bacteria and nutrients monitoring

from animal operations This final report and implementation plan is intended to memorialize the

work by the ARS to date under the work plans set out by the Puget Sound Stormwater Work

Group as well as to lay out implementation strategies that could be pursued to further this work

including descriptions of potentially suitable programs and funding sources

Recommendations

Agricultural Stormwater Effectiveness Monitoring

The group proposed recommendations in two tiers Tier 1 recommendations met all of the

following criteria more than one member submitted that particular study idea others could use

the information from the study broader geographic scope and greater ecological benefit Tier 2

recommendations are more specific and limited to a smaller geographic scope and or measure of

ecological benefit The PS SWG approved these subgroup recommendations in June 2014 See

Appendix A for additional details about the recommendations

Tier 1 Recommendations

What is the effectiveness of the typical suite of agricultural BMPs on reducing pollutants

via stormwater into Puget Sound streams

What is the effectiveness of drainage and stormwater ndashspecific BMPs in reducing

polluted run-off from agricultural lands

What is the effectiveness of ecological restoration to improve hydrology and other natural

functions

What are the greatest barriers to landowner participation in agricultural and where

applicable stormwater-specific BMP use

What is the effectiveness of roof runoff structural practices such as dry wells and hard-

lining to a field ditch to avoid bird fecal contributions

What is the effectiveness of media filters (barley straw compost etc) at reducing

nutrients sediment and bacteria

What is the effectiveness of settling tanks to treat runoff from non-manured production

areas such as feedcommodity areas then running the effluent through a fieldfilter strip

Cropland Nutrients and Sediment Monitoring

The ARS determined via review of existing inventory data that croplands are located primarily in

the North Puget Sound and several current monitoring programs already existing in the area were

reviewed These recommendations were approved by the PS SWG in March 2014

Coordinate existing sampling of sediments nitrogen and phosphorus with each other and

with future sampling

Develop a strategy for data sharing particularly for the NRCS edge-of-field monitoring

Baseline monitoring in marine waters should be done prior to installation of BMPs

intended to reduce nutrient loads to provide a better understanding of the imports and

exports from watersheds

Inventory sub-surface drainage structures such as tiles throughout Puget Sound and

prioritize areas for repair or improvement

Additional monitoring (utilizing bracketing) of nutrients and sediment

Pesticides

These recommendations were approved by the PS SWG in March 2013 following review and

discussion by the ARS of status and trends monitoring parameter lists and PS SWG suggestions

A more targeted approach that combines source ID and program or watershed scale

effectiveness monitoring is recommended over broad-scale monitoring such as status and

trends which is not the most cost-effective method of monitoring pesticides in Puget

Seek funding to augment the current Dept of Agriculture pesticide monitoring program

to use existing data to develop a model to estimate impacts due to peak flow events then

increase surface water sampling to test the model

Seek funding to conduct pesticide monitoring throughout other areas of the Puget Sound

region (other than Skagit Co) using a rotating panel of randomly-selected sites that are

associated with different cropping patterns

Bacteria and Nutrients

These recommendations were approved by the PS SWG in November 2012

Assure adequate support by finding the necessary technical political and financial

support that is needed throughout the process and develop an effective community

support system to ease the need for extensive regulatory oversight

Use broad-scale monitoring to prioritize problem areas at a sub-watershed level where

detailed source identification monitoring and implementation will occur

For high priority areas further define the problems while obtaining community support

by conducting community outreach to elevate the issue and obtain support and

collecting detailed survey information for all potential sources of impact in that area

Conduct source identification monitoring or bracket water quality monitoring around

storm events to better characterize the sources of pollutants in these high priority areas

Implement best management practices (BMPs) to address the identified problems

Provide and encourage source identification monitoring for livestock impacts to use the

guidance in Appendix A

Implementation Strategy

The following are proposed actions or programs to further the recommendations made by the

Literature Review

The first step recommended by the ARS with respect to any of the recommendations outlined

above is to conduct a literature review in each of the subject matter areas The ARS would prefer

to see effort and funding be directed first towards a literature review which in turn may inform

refinement and prioritization of the recommendations for further implementation

Collaboration with Ongoing Research and Monitoring Efforts

It is highly recommended that increased and focused collaboration be pursued among the various

agencies and organizations engaged in research associated with the ARS recommendations as

well as those engaged in or with interest in agricultural best management practice effectiveness

monitoring such as the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service WSU Extension and

University of Washington The Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program at the Puget Sound

Partnership as well as Department of Ecologyrsquos Environmental Assessment Program are two key

organizations currently conducting environmental assessment and monitoring work with multiple

additional agencies and organizations also collecting environmental data such as Ecology

WSDA WDFW Tribes and local governments such as cities counties and conservation

districts

The Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) is tasked with providing a

coordination center for the various ecosystem monitoring and data collection efforts occurring in

the region Multiple recommendations of the ARS relating to cropland nutrients and sediment

monitoring are associated with increased coordination and efficiency of monitoring efforts Work

remains to be done to fully integrate and coordinate all of the various ongoing efforts on a

regional scale

On a watershed or sub-watershed scale there are examples of coordinated water quality

monitoring occurring that are working well One example is the Clean Samish Initiative effort in

Skagit County The major entities and organizations involved in water quality monitoring in the

Samish River watershed work together to periodically review water quality data in order to

inform adaptive management decisions for the watershed In this example the primary data

collection and analysis entity is Skagit County

Another example is the focused watershed-scale work underway in Whatcom County under the

Whatcom Clean Water Program Multiple partners are participating in fecal coliform bacteria

water quality sampling and monitoring including Ecology Whatcom County WSDA Dairy

Nutrient Management Program Nooksack Indian Tribe Lummi Nation and Whatcom

Conservation District Several existing programs are bringing resources to bear in the area to

address sources of pollution One of the focus areas for the Whatcom Clean Water Program is

Drayton Harbor In October 2016 810 acres of shellfish growing area in Drayton Harbor were

upgraded by the WDOH from conditionally approved to approved a measure of success due at

least in part to the collaborative and coordinated structure of the Whatcom Clean Water Program

These two examples could be emulated elsewhere in the region at a similar scale with a

reasonable expectation of success

Conservation Effects Assessment Project

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) implements a Conservation Effects

Assessment Project (CEAP) program ldquoCEAP is a multi-agency effort to quantify the

environmental effects of conservation practices and programs and develop the science base for

managing the agricultural landscape for environmental qualityrdquo1 NRCS has led ten Special

Emphasis Watershed Assessments across the country since CEAPrsquos inception in 2002 These

assessments were focused on addressing specific resource concerns including the effectiveness

of conservation practices in reducing soil erosion nutrient and pathogen runoff Currently

NRCS in Washington is not funded for this program The ARS recommends pursuit of a Special

Emphasis Watershed Assessment to provide further understanding of the effectiveness of a

typical suite of agricultural BMPs in reducing pollutants to nearby waterways Selection of a

watershed(s) for assessment and the specific suite of BMPs for focus should be done by the

NRCS and ARS in collaboration with the Puget Sound Stormwater Work Group Considerations

for selection of an appropriate area for study should include HUC 8 or smaller geographic area

quantity and quality of data already available in the area tidal influence if any point sources of

pollution in the area and primary land use(s) Typical BMPs that may be considered for

effectiveness study as part of a suite of BMPs include any practices found in the NRCS Field

Office Technical Guide2 including streambank vegetation restoration and waste treatment

practices The average cost of the Special Emphasis Watershed Assessments already completed

is approximately $650000 The cost for a Special Emphasis Watershed Assessment in the Puget

Sound region will vary based on available resources from potential partners as well as the quality

and quantity of applicable data already available

Discovery Farms

Another recommended implementation strategy is to pursue expansion of the Discovery Farm

program The Discovery Farm concept initially began in the mid-west and now Discovery Farm

programs exist in Wisconsin3 Minnesota North Dakota and Washington A Discovery Farm is

a working farm that has entered into a contract to participate in a

researchevaluationdemonstration program Farmers agree to share the data collected on their

1 httpwwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsmainnationaltechnicalnraceap 2 httpwwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsmainwatechnical 3 httpwwwuwdiscoveryfarmsorghome

farms as part of the Discovery Farm program agreement Currently two Discovery Farms exists

in Washington Expanding this program more broadly around Puget Sound would serve to

address multiple facets of the agricultural stormwater effectiveness recommendations by

providing on the ground opportunities to install and monitor specific BMPsThe primary cost of

establishing a Discovery Farm is in the purchase and set up of appropriate monitoring

equipment Implementing Edge of Field Monitoring in conjunction with a Discovery Farm can

provide some cost off-set for the farmer Supplemental technical assistance and coordination

funding of approximately $29000 per farm is needed for initial set up Annual maintenance

sampling and data analysis costs are currently estimated at $10000 per Discovery Farm

Edge of Field Monitoring

The USDA NRCS offers cost share funding to agricultural producers under their Environmental

Quality Incentives Program for edge of field monitoring practices While the landowner remains

the owner of the data collected from implementing edge of field monitoring there are

opportunities for the data to be shared when incorporated with a Discovery Farm agreement

This financial incentive for landowners to invest in monitoring equipment to collect real-time

data about the runoff from their farms is a valuable tool for daylighting agricultural non-point

issues At this time there are currently two landowners implementing edge of field monitoring in

Washington in Whatcom County however NRCS recently conducted a sign-up period for this

practice and three additional landowners have applied to participate Edge of Field monitoring is

expensive to implement and contracts for this practice average around $250000 each and are for

a term of five to nine years This practice is a substantial investment for a farmer The ARS

would like to see the NRCS increase opportunities and funding for edge of field monitoring

practices Further encourage for landowners to engage in the Discovery Farm program to allow

for sharing of the data collected should be considered in the form of additional financial

incentives or exemption from the per-landowner Farm Bill cap set at $450000

Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) Programs

PIC programs managed by county health agencies are designed to identify potential sources of

bacterial nonpoint pollution and then work with private landowners including agricultural

producers to correct them Bracket monitoring and in some cases DNA analysis are being used

to identify sources PIC programs can be an effective strategy to employ to provide focused

effort in a particular watershed or sub-watershed Conservation districts in the region work with

county leads on PIC program implementation by providing technical assistance to agricultural

producers and other private landowners and in some cases financial incentives for BMP

implementation Despite examples that exist in the region of PIC program success in reducing

nonpoint pollution robust PIC programs do not exist in all counties in the region Clallam

County has not taken a lead role in establishing a local PIC program even though Clallam

Conservation District has provided extensive support to the county by drafting a PIC program

plan PIC programs are generally at least partially funded by the WA Department of Health in

conjunction with local county-generated revenues The ARS recommends supporting the

formation and operation of robust PIC programs at the local level region-wide

Precision Conservation Approach

The premise behind the precision conservation approach is to focus outreach and education

efforts and financial incentives from multiple sources and programs to achieve improvement in

natural resource conditions in a defined geographic area This is similar in structure to PIC

programs the Clean Samish Initiative and Whatcom Clean Water Program The WSCC was

awarded a Regional Conservation Partnership Program grant by NRCS in 2015 to implement the

Precision Conservation for Salmon and Water Quality Program (Puget Sound RCPP) providing

financial incentive funding for BMP implementation in high priority geographic areas in the

region In partnership with the WSCC the Puget Sound Natural Resource Alliance and the

Nature Conservancy produced the Opportunity Assessment for Targeted BMPs in Puget Sound4

which identifies high priority areas for focused BMP implementation to address salmon habitat

and water quality resource concerns This technical report is helping to guide the Puget Sound

RCPPThe WSCC and NRCS combine available funding under this program with many local

partners that also bring resources to the table To date four action area projects are underway

under this program Skykomish River and Stillaguamish River (Snohomish County) Thomas

Creek (Skagit County) and Newaukum Creek (King County) By concentrating efforts in this

manner and including monitoring requirements the WSCC anticipates demonstrating natural

resource improvement While the program is fairly new at the WSCC and project

implementation has just gotten underway a similar approach has resulted in measureable success

elsewhere The WSCC has proposed to expand opportunities for similar focused watershed-scale

projects to be implemented across the state in its 2017-19 biennial budget request

Implementation of this plan will require pursuit of additional funding to accomplish many of the

needs outlined in the recommendations including conducting an inventory of sub-surface

drainage structures on agricultural lands throughout Puget Sound BMP implementation and

increased sampling efforts See Appendix B for a table of potentially suitable funding

opportunities

Conclusion and Next Steps

This final report and implementation plan reiterates recommendations made by the ARS to the

PS SWG in recent years and presents an implementation strategy that could be pursued to further

the recommendations Work remains to be done to increase coordination and collaboration

around agricultural runoff effectiveness monitoring Much of the implementation strategy noted

4 httpsccwagovwp-contentuploads201606TechReport_Opportunity-Assessment-for-Targeted-BMPs-in-Puget-Sound_2016pdf

here is dependent on funding to move forward Coordinated pursuit of funding opportunities and

coordinated investment of available resources is needed to maximize the potential for success

Appendices

Appendix A Agricultural Stormwater Effectiveness Recommendations Cropland Nutrients

and Sediment Monitoring Recommendations Pesticides Recommendations

Bacteria and Nutrients Recommendations

Appendix B Table of Potential Funding Opportunities

Appendix C Conservation Effects Assessment Project Information

Appendix D Discovery Farms Fact Sheet

Appendix A

SUBJECT Agricultural Stormwater Effectiveness Monitoring

Effectiveness monitoring is an important component in program and project management It can

demonstrate andor quantify the success or failure of actions allowing for adaptive management

to improve the actions when needed Effectiveness monitoring has been recognized as

significant need within the Puget Sound Stormwater Monitoring Strategy Our discussion within

the Agriculture Stormwater group built upon the work done by the Puget Sound Workgroup

BACKGROUND

What monitoring and assessment information is needed and why

Stormwater effectiveness monitoring on agricultural activities is sparse in Washington State but

has been studied around common best management practices (BMPs) in other parts of the United

States Questions have been posed as to the transferability of those results to the Puget Sound

Region Reasons why this monitoring might be region-specific include the difference in BMPs

from state to state While the Natural Resources Conservation Service has nation-wide

agricultural BMPs each state can increase conservation benefit for state-specific needs In

Washington State we have stricter state water quality standards compared to the national Clean

Water Act requirements and we have endangered species concerns for salmon and other species

that can be impacted by impaired water quality

In addition there is a need for effectiveness monitoring on specific activities that appear to have

not been evaluated in other studies However the first step prior to implementing any of the

recommended studies should be a literature review to ascertain the current status of information

Who was involved in the Subgroup and how were decisions made

Involvement Heather Kibbey (City of Everett) Bobbi Lindemulder (Snohomish Conservation

District) Karen Bishop (Whidbey Island Conservation District phone) Bob Cusimano (ECY)

Chery Sullivan (Washington Dept of Agriculture) John Bolender (Mason Conservation

District) George Boggs (Whatcom Conservation District) Rich Doenges (Thurston County)

Monte Marti (Snohomish Conservation District) Rick Haley (Skagit County) Kelly McLain

(Washington Dept of Agriculture) and Carol Smith (WA Conservation Commission)

participated in one or both of the two meetings when these were developed In addition Meghan

Adamire (Clallam Conservation District) Adam Lorio (Samish Indian Nation) Dino

Marshalonis (EPA) Jay Gordon (WA Dairy Fed) Joe Holtrop (Clallam Conservation District)

Carolyn Kelly (Skagit Conservation District) Western WA Agriculture Clare Flanagan (NRCS)

Sherre Copeland (NRCS) Bill Bowe (Snohomish Conservation District) Seth Book (Mason

Conservation District) and Michael See (Skagit County) were provided with opportunities to

participate in email reviews and discussions and a few of these did provide comment

Decision Making Process These recommendations were developed using the following

process

1) We reviewed the following ranking criteria spreadsheet developed by the Puget Sound

Stormwater Work Group

httpsdocsgooglecomviewera=vamppid=sitesampsrcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxwdWdldHN

vdW5kc3Rvcm13YXRlcndvcmtncm91cHxneDoyZmRkYjdkYTJhMjg0Y2E0

The criteria of interest were

How many members submitted that particular study idea

Could others use the information from this study

What is the geographic impact of the study

What is the ecological impact of the study

Is it a resource intense study (not cost effective)

Does it provide quantifiable improvements

2) Each member submitted agricultural stormwater effectiveness monitoring ideas to the Chair

We reviewed those at the July 2013 meeting Although we didnrsquot formally quantify how each

topic performed relative to the criteria we used the criteria to guide our prioritization

3) Decisions were achieved via consensus of those present at the meetings The decisions

(recommendations) were sent out for review to all sub-group members Questions from others

were posed to the group and answeredaddressed via email All of the included

recommendations were agreed-to by the Agriculture Stormwater Workgroup without dissent

Where are we in the SWG approval process and when are decisions needed

Recommendations were presented at the November 2013 meeting with decision at the

March 2014 meeting

How and when are recommendations envisioned to be implemented

The agriculture stormwater subgroup will develop an implementation and funding plan in a

future set of meetings We want to develop this plan after we have a full set of agriculture

recommendations to facilitate prioritization Also we only want to develop this plan for

approved recommendations

What are the funding implications See answer above

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternative 1) No adoption of recommendations No change or improvement Lack of coordination across areas 2) Partial adoption of recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS AND REASONING

We decided upon a two-tiered prioritization We discovered that most of the ideas fit into a few

categories and those were deemed highest priority and equal to each other in priority These

were placed in Tier 1 They rank higher because they met all of the following criteria

More than one member submitted that particular study idea

Others could use the information from this study

These have a broader geographic scope

These have a greater ecological benefit

The remaining ideas are important and could also benefit others but are more specific and

limited and therefore a slightly lower in geographic scope and ecological benefits They are

listed in a second group as Tier 2

It is recommended that a literature review be conducted on these topics as a first step

Tier 1 Highest Priority

What is the effectiveness of the typical suite of agricultural BMPs on reducing pollutants via

stormwater into Puget Sound streams Hypothesis form Commonly prescribed agricultural

BMPs have no effect on preventing agricultural stormwater pollution from impacting water

Specific needs There is a high confidence in the practices but low confidence in behavior

Need to do this at a larger scale such as watershed or sub-watershed Should monitor over time

to study adoption rate and continued implementation over time Another set of related questions

what is the best combination of practices per activity (hobby farm dairy etc)

What is the effectiveness of drainage and stormwater ndashspecific BMPs in reducing polluted run-

off from agricultural lands This includes stormwater retention facilities such as ponds and

roof runoff and tiling Hypothesis form Stormwater and drainage BMPs do not reduce

agricultural pollutants from entering surface water A related need is a study to show how

upland sources from other land uses (urban forestry) impact runoff from ag lands that are

located more proximate to surface waters

functions This would include trees healthier soils and compost and viewing the farm as an

ecological unit Hypothesis form Ecological restoration does not reduce stormwater impacts to

surface water from agriculture lands This ties into the effort by Ecological Services in Whatcom

looking at CREP sites Another example is found in the Whidbey Island District where a project

is assessing increased root masses and water flows Ebeyrsquos watershed provides an opportunity

to test flow in a similar manner

What are the greatest barriers to landowner participation in agricultural BMP use Conduct a

survey to determine the social factors to stormwater improvements For example is information

protection a major barrier Some literature might be available to refine this question

(Chesapeake) Focus group work might be useful

Tier 2 Medium Priority

What is the effectiveness of roof runoff structural practices such as dry wells and hard-lining to

a field ditch to avoid bird fecal contributions Hypothesis form Dry wells and hard-lining do

not improve water quality from bird inputs to roof run-off from agricultural structures

What is the effectiveness of media filters (barley straw compost etc) at reducing nutrients

sediment and bacteria Hypothesis form Media filters have no effect on reducing stormwater

pollution inputs into Puget Sound waters

What is the effectiveness of settling tanks to treat runoff from non-manured production areas

such as feedcommodity areas then running the effluent through a fieldfilter strip This is a

method recently used in Thurston County to deal with washed dairy water Hypothesis form

Dairy run-off treated with settling tanks and grass filters show no change in water quality

Other Supporting Documentation

USGS study of groundsurface water interactions in the Nooksack Basin for fecals and nitrates

httppubsusgsgovsir20055255indexhtml

NOTE this attachment should be added to over time as the subgroup completes new sets of

recommendations Changes and new sections should be presented in track-changes

RECOMMENDATIONS

Summarize the overall recommendations endorsed by the subgroup members and the degree of

consensus reached

(approved by the SWG on ___)

By consensus the subgroup recommends

1 First overall or general recommendation

2 Second overall or general recommendation

a Detailed recommendation

By majority the subgroup recommends

1 Majority recommendation

a Minority concerns andor suggested alternatives

BACKGROUND

Provide a reasonably detailed summary of the issue including

The specific need for information to improve stormwater management

Interested parties subgroup participants and process used to make recommendations

Status of current knowledge and efforts to monitor and assess this topic

o Provide a brief but informative summary of the context for the recommendations

and background information including

A summary of previous and ongoing work in the region that supports the

recommendations What gaps have been identified

Relevance of the topic including understanding impacts to biota

Links to key reports and other important sources of information These

and other sources of information should be listed in the References section

as appropriate

Priorities that must be determined to strategically expand improve complement or

replace current monitoring How is the recommended monitoring coordinated with other programs How the proposed monitoring and specific recommendations fit into SWAMPPS

o And if applicable how they fit into the muni-permit-funded RSMP

SUPPORTING DETAILS

Specific types of analyses that will be made Data management approach

IMPLEMENTATION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND COST ESTIMATES

Expected timing and sequencing for implementing the recommendations

When the subgroup is prepared to include implementation recommendations following their

technical recommendations complete this section Call out any gaps that need to be filled and

the implication of not addressing those shortcomings

REFERENCES

Author date title source and link if available

APPENDICES

As needed or appropriate

February 3 2014

Stormwater Monitoring of Nutrients and Sediment from Cropland

in Puget Sound

Background

Cropland is a common land use in some Puget Sound Counties particularly in north Puget Sound

(Figure 1) Cropland activities can result in potential impacts to surface waters These include

pesticide pollution excess sediment and excess nutrient input Best management practices

(bmps) are used to minimize these impacts but monitoring is necessary to document the extent

of water quality improvements

Figure 1 Puget Sound Cropland (WA Dept Ag 2012)

Acres of of PS

County Cropland Cropland

Whatcom 61983 3088

Skagit 57762 2878

Snohomish 21896 1091

Thurston 14535 724

King 12576 627

Pierce 10837 540

Island 6232 310

Clallam 4537 226

Jefferson 2796 139

Mason 1667 083

Kitsap 821 041

The Puget Sound Stormwater workgroup developed a strategy framework for monitoring

potential stormwater impacts including those associated with agricultural lands Detailed

recommendations are needed to complete the strategy To address this need for agricultural

lands a sub-group was formed to analyze data and develop the recommendations for potential

impacts from agricultural lands This Agriculture Stormwater Sub-Group developed

recommendations for pesticide monitoring associated with croplands last year These were

approved by the Puget Sound Stormwater Workgroup This year the sub-group focused on

monitoring recommendations for nutrient and sediment inputs from cropland and these findings

are discussed below

Process to Develop Recommendations

The recommendations were developed using the following process

1 Document existing cropland in Puget Sound and potential impacts to nutrients and sediment This informs the level of needed monitoring for these parameters

2 Identify existing monitoring programs that relate to nutrient and sediment monitoring

from croplands in Puget Sound Review those programs for relevancy and to define

current status of monitoring these parameters

February 3 2014

3 Compare existing monitoring efforts to needed levels to identify data gaps towards a

complete monitoring strategy for cropland sediment and nutrients

4 Develop recommendations to fill data gaps

Decisions were achieved via consensus of those present at the meetings The decisions

Current Potential Cropland Impacts and Monitoring Programs

To define the current status and monitoring of cropland nutrients and sediment in Puget Sound

the Agriculture Stormwater Sub-Group reviewed cropland use and current monitoring efforts for

nutrient and sediment inputs

Cropland findings

Most cropland acreage is in north Puget Sound (Figure 1 and Appendix 1) which points

out a regional need to focus in that area

Crop types in north Puget Sound include the same crop types in other areas thereby

representing cropland throughout Puget Sound

The timing of parameters of interest is February through September for manurenutrients

and springtime for sediment

Some crop types do not fit the usual profile These are berries seed and trees which

have less impact as they are not annual crops and have less soil disturbance Also

potatoes have reduced risk of nutrient input

Shellfish production was not included in any of our review because we are focused on

terrestrial agriculture Different participants would be needed for inclusion of shellfish

and should be a future task by a different workgroup composition

Current Monitoring Activities and Needs

Below is a description of current monitoring activities by county For a detailed list of specific

programs reviewed see Appendix 2

1) Whatcom County Cropland monitoring has been lacking for both nutrients and sediment but

new programs are beginning to fill some of these data gaps and new NRCS funding could be

used to further augment monitoring at the farm scale Fecal coliform appears to be sampled by

two programs and total suspended solids in a new program (Natural Resource Assessment

Program) that will focus on Bertrand Creek Additional new monitoring has begun by the

Department of Ecology in Bertrand Creek which is monitoring nutrients sediment and other

parameters

However even with the new sampling in Bertrand for the parameters of concern there could be

a remaining need for sediment monitoring in other areas of the county There are numerous

ditches on agricultural land that have a potential impact on transporting sediment and nutrients

downstream to beneficial use areas Also annual crops and perennial crops that are rotated out

of production and for which no cover crop has been established can contribute sediment that

February 3 2014

directly impacts salmon redds The accumulation of sediment over time diminishes watercourse

drainage capacity This results in the desireneed to dredge out watercourse eliminating fish

habitat Current monitoring does not record the magnitude of this problem Once results from

the new sampling are available they should be analyzed and discussed as to whether or not they

are sufficient to represent the remainder of the county The new edge-of-field sampling could be

used to fill some of the gaps too Additional monitoring might be needed in the future for both

nutrients and sediment but that should be decided after the initial results from the new programs

are analyzed

2) Skagit County The Skagit County Monitoring Program samples both nutrients and total

suspended solids Originally they sampled monthly from 2003-2008 Now they sample

quarterly While they donrsquot specifically target crop locations many of the sites are in actively-

farmed crop areas It is ambient monitoring every two weeks for fecal DO temperature pH

conductivity and turbidity Given the size of their data set and the time span over many years

the county believes it has data showing impacts from storm events This level of monitoring fills

much of the data need in this cropland-heavy county

3) Whidbey and Camano Islands The county has a similar program to Skagit that includes both

nutrients and sediment with about 5 years worth of data However it probably is not linked to

storm events It was developed with Critical Area Ordinance issues in mind

All north Puget Sound counties recognized a need to know where drainage tiles exist These

convey pollutants to surface waters quickly and need to be addressed

Monitoring Conclusions

Monitoring potential cropland sediment and nutrient impacts in north Puget Sound is the

top geographic priority and likely well-represents other areas in Puget Sound

Current levels of monitoring covers much of the need Notable gaps include specific

linkage to stormwater events effect of bmp implementation on marine dissolved oxygen

levels certain cropland areas of interest impacts from drainage tiles combining existing

monitoring to NRCSrsquos new edge-of-field monitoring and a need to address data sharing

laws that impede the flow of information

Recommendations to Address Monitoring Needs

1) Current monitoring is generally good in Skagit and Whidbey Island Counties

Monitoring in Whatcom County is improving with the addition of programs by the

Washington Departments of Agriculture and Ecology who are separately conducting new

monitoring there Our first recommendation is to coordinate existing sampling of

sediments nitrogen and phosphorus with each other and with future sampling This

includes the edge-of-field monitoring funded by NRCS in Fishtrap and Bertrand Creeks

and the Dept of Ecologyrsquos and Agriculturersquos sampling This would leverage the work in

existing programs Sampling should include stormwater events An action item from

this recommendation would be the development of a joint plan that melds the different

monitoring programs together in a cohesive efficient way

February 3 2014

2) Develop a strategy for data sharing particularly for the NRCS edge-of-field monitoring

Currently some data from this funding source are prohibited from sharing under the

federal Farm Bill A signed agreement will be needed to assure landowners of data use

limitations while also allowing landowner data to be used by coordinated monitoring

efforts including those by the Dept of Ecology The ability to combine these data with

state agency programmatic data will allow important linkage between bmp

implementation and pollution levels This will allow for adaptive management and

demonstration of success or failure

3) Increased nutrients can reduce dissolved oxygen levels by triggering algae blooms that

upon decomposition lower oxygen levels One source of nutrients is agricultural lands

As BMPs are installed to decrease these loads monitoring should be done to show the

effectiveness in nearby marine areas Data are lacking for this topic which is becoming

elevated in importance The Puget Sound dissolved oxygen model nutrient load

summary is supporting documentation for this need and can be found here

httpsfortresswagovecypublicationspublications1103057pdf

4) Sub-surface drainage structures such as tiles are known to quickly convey pollutants and

flow to surface waters However their locations are mostly unknown These need to be

inventoried in many areas of Puget Sound including Whatcom Island Snohomish

Jefferson (Chimacum Creek Valley) and Skagit Counties Once inventoried areas

should be prioritized to address problem areas This work may also need a data sharing

agreement as mentioned in Recommendation 2

5) A few areas have significant cropland with unique circumstances and are lacking in

monitoring of nutrients and sediment from croplands This is needed in the Marshland

French Creek and Warm Beach areas of Snohomish County and Ebeyrsquos watershed on

Whidbey Island Monitoring should be bracketed to separate non-ag sources from ag

sources The Ebey Watershed has potential inputs from other land uses upland that make

it a unique monitoring scenario

Sub-Group Involvement Heather Kibbey (City of Everett) Bobbi Lindemulder (Snohomish

Conservation District) Karen Bishop (Whidbey Island Conservation District phone) Bob

Cusimano (ECY) Chery Sullivan (Washington Dept of Agriculture) John Bolender (Mason

Conservation District) George Boggs (Whatcom Conservation District) Rich Doenges

(Thurston County) Monte Marti (Snohomish Conservation District) Rick Haley (Skagit

County) Kelly McLain (Washington Dept of Agriculture) and Carol Smith (WA Conservation

Commission) participated in one or both of the two meetings when these were developed In

addition Meghan Adamire (Clallam Conservation District) Adam Lorio (Samish Indian

Nation) Dino Marshalonis (EPA) Jay Gordon (WA Dairy Fed) Joe Holtrop (Clallam

Conservation District) Carolyn Kelly (Skagit Conservation District) Western WA Agriculture

Clare Flanagan (NRCS) Sherre Copeland (NRCS) Bill Bowe (Snohomish Conservation

District) Seth Book (Mason Conservation District) and Michael See (Skagit County) were

provided with opportunities to participate in email reviews and discussions and a few of these

provided comment

Agriculture Stormwater Sub-Committee

Pesticide Monitoring Recommendations

The Agricultural Stormwater Sub-Committee discussed the changes suggested by the Puget

Sound Stormwater Workgroup and have revised the pesticide monitoring recommendations

accordingly The changes are discussed below by topic The bold text is the change desired by

the Puget Sound Stormwater group The regular text following the bold type is the revision by

the Agricultural Stormwater Sub-Committee

1) Provide additional information on program for contextual understanding The following

citation and web link provides detailed background information on the pesticide monitoring

program Sargent D et al 2010 Surface water monitoring program for pesticides in salmonid-

bearing streams 2006-2008 triennial report WA State Dept Ecology and WA State Dept of

Agriculture Pub 10-03-008 305 pp httpagrwagovFPPubsdocs302-SWM2006-

2008Reportpdf

2) Articulate the monitoring questions amp consider rotating panel sampling

Revised Recommendation 1 Broad scale monitoring such as status and trends is not the

most cost-effective method to monitor pesticides in Puget Sound water bodies We recommend a more targeted approach that combines source ID and program or watershed scale effectiveness monitoring The Dept of Agriculture and Ecologyrsquos current program provides a valuable foundation for pesticide monitoring in the state and uses source ID and effectiveness monitoring We recommend continued reliance and funding for this program to serve as the baseline for stormwater agricultural pesticide monitoring This program answers the following questions Are pesticide levels in salmon-bearing surface waters within acceptable levels throughout the pesticide usage period in the Puget Sound region Which chemicals are above acceptable levels For any high level of detected pesticide which crops are the likely contributors

Revised Recommendation 2 The current pesticide monitoring program samples

agricultural lands on a weekly basis from March through mid-September but does not specifically sample peak flow events We recommend seeking funding to augment the current AgECY pesticide monitoring program to use existing data to develop a model to estimate impacts due to peak flow events then increase surface water sampling to test the model This could start as a pilot program in the Skagit Basin because that is where the baseline data exists The monitoring questions addressed are Are the pesticide levels in salmon-bearing surface waters within acceptable levels during peak flow events If not which chemicals and crop type are associated with higher levels

Revised Recommendation 3 The current pesticide monitoring program samples water

bodies susceptible to agricultural runoff in Skagit County However these water bodies may not be representative of areas where cropping patterns are significantly different We recommend seeking funding to conduct pesticide monitoring throughout other areas of the Puget Sound region using a rotating panel of randomly-selected sites that are associated with different cropping patterns The monitoring question that would be answered is Are monitored pesticide levels in salmon-bearing surface waters associated with cropland throughout the Puget Sound region similar to those in extensively-monitored Skagit County Based upon existing

information the rotation period per site will need to be a minimum of three years and may need to be longer to account for annual variability There may also be practical limitations with laboratory capacity

3) Reflect on Overlap Between Agricultural Residential and Commercial Pesticide Uses

The Agricultural Stormwater Sub-Committee considered the issue of pesticide impacts from

other land uses and appreciates the need to include these It will be important to highlight this

data need as the strategy is developed However the sub-committee will not be able to

address other land use issues within its existing priorities and work plan

SUBJECT Recommendations for Monitoring Potential Animal Impacts to Stormwater from Agricultural Lands

ISSUE Agricultural production of animal products can have water quality impacts that are delivered via stormwater or direct deposit to streams These include impairments in sediment pH dissolved oxygen nutrients fecal coliform and certain metals impairing beneficial uses for salmon and other fish species humans and aquatic ecosystems as a whole This strategy seeks to identify then address potential sources from all livestock operations including those that exist for profit and those that are hobby-related with a focus on ruralagricultural areas

In terms of regulatory oversight there are two basic categories of livestock farms those that have specific requirements under either the state dairy nutrient management program the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (ldquoCAFOrdquo) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ldquoNPDESrdquo) permit system or County Critical Areas Ordinances and those that do not Dairies and permitted facilities operate under a system that collects information about the potential impacts and addresses those impacts with Best Management Practices (BMPs) Follow-up monitoring includes implementation monitoring soil tests and occasional water quality investigations While all licensed dairies are covered by the state dairy program there are currently a small number of CAFOs that are covered by the permit Most livestock operations are not part of either system resulting in a lack of information about where and how much total potential impact exists within a watershed or sub-watershed

Also once potential pollutant loadings are identified areas need to be prioritized and a successful program based on good stewardship needs to be applied to address the problems Lastly follow-up monitoring is needed to assure that water quality has improved to the level expected

The recommendations described below provide a framework to 1) use broad-scale monitoring to identify and prioritize potential problem areas 2) conduct an adequate process that can successfully address the issues 3) use source identification monitoring to define specific problem reaches 4) address the problems with BMPs and 5) conduct follow-up effectiveness monitoring at a sub-watershed scale to confirm that the BMPs are implemented and have adequately addressed the problem Lastly we recommend that source identification for livestock impacts incorporate the suggested parameters in the attached source ID guidance paper

BACKGROUND Which types of monitoring and assessment information are needed and why

The Agriculture Stormwater Sub-Group reviewed existing information regarding agriculturally-produced animal products in Puget Sound They found that not only is monitoring lacking for many types of livestock operations but there is no process or strategy in place to address problems for farms that are not under the Dairy Nutrient Management Program or covered by a permit system Also for all animal facilities follow-up water quality monitoring at a broader scale is uncommon and needed to ensure that enough actions have been done to achieve standards where it counts in the stream or ecosystem

The current situation is that licensed dairy farms and permitted CAFOs have oversight from the Departments of Agriculture and Ecology The current level of monitoring for these activities are 1) best management practices (BMPs) are monitored for implementation (were they installed and are they in use) 2) soil tests for nitrogen and phosphorus when manure and fertilizer is applied on cropland 3)

discharges are investigated and 4) existing ambient water quality monitoring can be examined to assess water quality impacts However water quality measurements may have little correlation to stormwater events The conclusion is that while there is existing implementation monitoring of the practices on dairies and the few permitted operations such practice implementation monitoring is lacking for other livestock activities Also larger scale (watershed or sub-watershed) water quality monitoring is generally lacking especially when related to stormwater

All other livestock farms are not under an oversight system and no monitoring or record-keeping is required This includes heifers feedlots non-beef and smallhobby farms For these types of farms the current situation is 1) inventories of animals have been done in some counties but not across the Puget Sound region 2) Some of these inventories included prioritization of farms based upon a potential to pollute 3) up until now little guidance has existed on how to conduct adequate source identification monitoring to define problem reaches and how to use this information where it exists to improve water quality

The desired monitoring strategy for all types of livestock farms is described in the recommendations below The strategy needs to be credible (confidence in methods results and conclusions) effective as least-intrusive as possible and alters behavior to result in good water quality It includes collecting needed information on livestock operations applying a strategy that is believed to be successful in addressing agriculture-related livestock problems with a heavy reliance on good stewardship and support from livestock landowners and the community and guidance regarding what and how to monitor

Who was involved in the Subgroup and how were decisions made Members of the Agriculture Subgroup are or have been Heather Kibbey (City of Everett) Mike Shelby (Western Washington Agriculture) Jay Gordon (Washington Dairy Federation) Karma Anderson and Dino Marshalonis (EPA) Bob Cusimano (ECY) Monte Marti and Bill Bowe (Snohomish Conservation District) Karen Bishop (Whidbey Island Conservation District) Sherre Copeland and Clare Flanagan (NRCS) Nora Mena Chery Sullivan Kelly McLain and Jim Cowles (Washington Dept of Agriculture) Rick Haley and Michael See (Skagit County) Joe Holtrop and Meghan Adamire (Clallam Conservation District) Carolyn Kelly (Skagit Conservation District) John Bolender (Mason Conservation District) Rosie Taylor (Jefferson Conservation District) George Boggs (Whatcom Conservation District) Heather Trim (People for Puget Sound) Richard Doenges (Thurston County) Adam Lorio (Samish Indian Nation and Carol Smith (Washington Conservation Commission) These individuals had the opportunity to review and comment on all products but do not necessarily endorse all the recommendations

Products included meeting summaries from five meetings March May July August and October 2012 The recommendations were developed primarily in the March and May meetings They were reviewed for submission to the Puget Sound Stormwater Workgroup during the August 9 meeting with revisions finalized at the October 12th meeting A mix of participants was present at the March May July August and October meetings when this product was under development

Decisions were reached by consensus

Where are we in the SWG approval process and when are decisions needed Draft recommendations were presented at the September 19th meeting Consensus within the ag stormwater group was not fully reached at that time A follow up presentation of revised recommendations is scheduled for the November 14th Puget Sound Stormwater Workgroup meeting

The agriculture stormwater subgroup will develop an implementation and funding plan in a future set of meetings We want to develop this plan after we have a full set of agriculture recommendations to facilitate prioritization Also we only want to develop this plan for approved recommendations

What are the funding implications See above answer

We considered the circumstances as we know them and our recommendations are in the following sections The consideration of alternative solutions would involve work outside the scope of this sub-committee

Assure adequate support To achieve success certain key items need to be in place prior to implementation

Recommendation 1 Find the necessary technical political and financial support that is needed throughout the process Some of the funding should be from a consistent source (not grants) for basic operations and monitoring Supplemental funding could be used for additional monitoring and implementation Technical support also includes a coordinator to manage funds oversee activities manage contracts with other entities to implement the program and interface with the local political environment for continued support

Recommendation 2 Develop an effective community support system to ease the need for extensive regulatory oversight Along with an effective community support system examine the existing enforcement process that would occur only when local voluntary efforts are unsuccessful Is existing enforcement well-defined well-communicated appropriate and sufficient

Use broad-scale monitoring to prioritize problem areas at a sub-watershed level where detailed source identification monitoring and implementation will occur Significant data gaps exist especially regarding the extent of potential problem areas associated with small (unpermittedunlicensed) livestock farms or dairies Key questions needing data are in which sub-watersheds should we focus resources initially and to what extent do farm animals contribute to pollutant problems in Puget Sound during stormwater events Our first recommendation is to use broad-scale monitoring and other data as triggers to identify the areas with the greatest problems The second recommendation is to provide a clearer picture of current animal impact to stormwater conditions

Recommendation 3 Use triggers such as broad-scale monitoring to identify sub-watersheds that have a high potential impact Triggers include the presence of a TMDL for agricultural parameters in an area with significant agriculture documentation of downstream problems potentially relating to agriculture such as shellfish bed closures water quality results (ie status and trends monitoring ambient water quality monitoring and others) that indicate problems and farm survey information (focused on agriculturalrural lands) It is also important to prioritize by being proactive rather than just reactive and consider pollutant loading sources How contributory are the sources to potential pollution An example would be a stream with high loads and high flows contributing to total impact This situation would be prioritized over a stream with high loads and low flows

Recommendation 4 Because farm survey results can be important identifiers of potential pollution conduct surveys where data gaps currently exist for non-dairy non-permitted operations Important data to collect includes animal numbers types location proximity to water bodies BMPs in use and BMPs needed This information is not easily documented

To facilitate this action we have a few examples of forms and prioritization methods that can be used by others in the future (Appendix 1) although most importantly the survey should include the above-listed data fields Surveys have been completed in Whatcom Samish Clallam Stillaguamish Snohomish Kitsap and King County watersheds Survey frequency will depend on local conditions landowner turnover and other factors resulting from adaptive management Ideally this work would be dynamic with GIS updates resulting from monitoring results field visits and implemented plans

Recommendation 5 Coordinate with existing monitoring programs to avoid duplication of effort and leverage existing resources Examples are the Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC) work that the Department of Health is funding across Puget Sound and any implementation of Ecologyrsquos Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)

Conduct an adequate process to successfully address the problems Once a high priority problem area has been identified apply the following strategy to better define the problem and then address the problem using source ID monitoring These recommendations will address the following questions

What are the relative roles and value of community involvement voluntary compliance and enforcement in solving farm animal pollution

How do we effectively monitor and then reduce and prevent the impact of farm animal waste

Are current monitoring efforts sufficient for permitted or licensed dairy facilities for unpermitted facilities

Recommendation 6 For high priority areas further define the problems while obtaining community support a Conduct community outreach to elevate the issue and obtain support Define the

community to be small enough to be effective If community support is not present the remaining actions are unlikely to be successful As part of building community support identify an early adopter to show success quickly

b Collect detailed survey information for all potential sources of impact in that area This includes non-ag small farms permitted and dairy facilities and other commercial operations It is recognized that pollutants from non-agricultural activities may influence the water quality in agricultural areas and these other sources need to be inventoried as well

Recommendation 7 Conduct source identification monitoring or bracket water quality monitoring around storm events to better characterize the sources of pollutants in these high priority areas Can use the suggested parameters developed in this process (Appendix 2)

Recommendation 8 Implement best management practices (BMPs) to address the identified sources of problems Monitor the implementation and maintenance of BMPs (see example of implementation monitoring form in Appendix 3) BMPs could include vegetative practices to improve water quality

Recommendation 9 Conduct effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management to mark progress and implement additional practices

Provide guidance for choosing source identification parameters for livestock farms

Recommendation 10 Provide and encourage source identification monitoring for livestock impacts to use the guidance in Appendix 2 This is a suggested list of parameters needed for initial source identification monitoring for livestock impacts The choice of parameters will be driven by the site-specific needs of that area This may require the addition of other parameters in some sites Advance new monitoring techniques when proven to be effective

These data are important to help answer the question

How can bracket monitoring better identify problem areas and subsequent changesimprovements after BMP implementation

Appendix 1 Examples of Forms or Processes Used for Successful Livestock Surveys and Prioritization of Potential Impacts

Example 1 Clallam Conservation District

AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY REMEDIATION STRATEGY

STEP 1 ndash INVENTORY OF FARMS COUNTYWIDE - 1252 Farms Inventoried in 2006

Performed a windshield survey of the entire county driving down all roads Using hardcopy maps

farm parcels were outlined based on field observations and assigned a farm number The farm

number and following information were entered into an access database on a laptop brought into

the field

Parcel site address which was linked to a spatial database for mapping and data analysis

Number and type of livestock

Types of crops and acreage estimates

Notation of parcels with general agricultural activities such as poultry apiaries farm

stands flowers hay nurseries etc

Farms ldquorankingrdquo based on their potential to impact water quality (high medium low)

Took into account horselivestock access to waterways waterways with outlets

proximity of manure piles and wintertime confinement areas to surface water etc

STEP 2 ndash PRIORITIZE FARMS according to potential impacts to surface water quality

MEDIUM and HIGH POTENTIAL IMPACT = HIGH PRIORITY

125 High Priority Farms Countywide

STEP 3 ndash PRIORITIZE FARMS by WRIA WATERSHED and SUBWATERSHED

STEP 4 ndash DESCRIBE HIGH PRIORITY FARMS according to status with District

COOPERATORS ndash describe status (why are they still High Priority)

NO RECENT or PREVIOUS CONTACT

UNCOOPERATIVE

STEP 5 ndash CONDUCT REGIONAL WORKSHOPS targeting HIGH PRIORITY FARMS

STEP 6 ndash INITIATE OUTREACH EFFORTS to HIGH PRIORITY FARMS

1 THREE CRABS AREA

2 Remainder of DUNGENESS BAY WATERSHED

3 Remainder of CLEAN WATER DISTRICT

Multiple contactsvisits over several months may be necessary before achieving cooperation

STEP 7 ndash PROVIDE TECHNICAL andor FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE to HIGH PRIORITY FARMS

If necessary to mitigate water quality impacts

STEP 8 ndash IF COOPERATION IS UNACHIEVABLE

Next steps will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis

STEP 9 ndash ADD FARMS TO THE HIGH PRIORITY LIST AS NEEDED

Any HIGH PRIORITY FARM requesting assistance is a top priority regardless of geographic location

If resources are insufficient to meet demand high priority farms will be prioritized according to

geographic location Geographic priorities are listed under STEP 6 A LOW PRIORITY FARM may be

considered a high priority to assist if other factors including status in the community help achieve

outreach goals in region

Example 2 Snohomish Conservation District

What data has been collected and how collected

o Snohomish CD has collected a lot of ldquovisualrdquo livestock inventory data over the years The latest were two priority watersheds within the Stillaguamish Clean Water District

Data collected was done via windshield surveys on county roads The staff did not go

down private drives or roads

o SCD also did follow-up on completed farm plans over a period of 10 years to determine

the efficacy of implementation This was done via phone calls and surveys as a way to

reconnect with landowners We found this a very useful tool to identify BMPs that had

been developed after a grant or contract ended and determine why they moved forward

with implementation and were they maintaining the BMP It also provided a way to

assess why people werenrsquot implementing BMPs

o SCD has also collected some livestock survey data via GPS technology

o Other data collected was manually written down on each site according to numberstype

of livestock BMPs implemented BMPs lacking type of wetlandwaterway or critical

area access by livestock to water notes for discussion to help prioritize site based on

water quality

How is the data analyzed or summarized (if it was)

o Data was manually put into an Access database and any GPS coordinates were loaded It

was then downloaded to a spreadsheet where we used pivot tables to analyze the data

This allowed us to figure out percentages and help prioritize ldquohot spotsrdquo It also allowed

us to determine the amount of BMPs that were on the ground as well as how much was

lacking

How was it used to prioritize workload or assist in decision making

o This data allowed us to determine and sort the ldquohigh riskrdquo properties to use as a priority for funding as well as a priority for follow-up and continued effort within these

watersheds The watersheds were prioritized for survey work by the Stillaguamish Clean

Water District and their proximity andor impacts to shellfish beds and water quality

based on TMDLs local knowledge and existing water quality data

Example 3 Department of Ecology

Livestock and Water Quality Site Visit

Site Visit Information First Visit Follow-up Visit

Prepared by Arrival Time________ Depart ______________

___________________________________________________________

______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

Date ______________ Current Weather

Conditions______________________________________________

OwnerOperator

Name Street

E-mail

_____ City

______

___________________

Site Details

County Watershed

General Site description (include information on nearby water bodies and description of farm conditions)

Site Evaluation

1) Stream Corridor and Other Areas Near Surface Water Evaluated Not Evaluated

Bare exposed eroding soils Absence of woody vegetation

Contaminated run-off (active or potential) Manure accumulations

Slumping stream banks and erosion Animal access to surface water

Overgrazing of grasses Livestock paths and trails along riparian areas

Comments

2) Confinement Areas Evaluated Not Evaluated

Distance to surface water (_____ft) Signs of previous runoff into surface water

Presence of mud and manure Polluted run-off reaching surface water

Polluted runoff leaving the area Roof runoff water flows to confinement areas

Signs of polluted run-off leaving the area Adjacent land slopes toward surface water

Comments

3) Stock water Evaluated Not Evaluated

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

Distance to surface water (_____ft) Mud and standing water at tanks

Overflow from tanks on to the ground Animals accesses stream for stock water

Comments

4) Upland Pasture Areas Evaluated Not Evaluated

Animal access to stream corridors Signs of overgrazing and erosion

Distance to surface water (_____ft) Manure accumulations and bare ground

Comments

5) Manure Management Evaluated Not Evaluated Current manure management plan_____ Manure stored on an impervious surface_______

Manure collected and stored______ Applied during growing season____ __

Manure storage properly sized Manure applied during non-growing season __

Manure storage covered Vegetated buffer when manure is applied _

Manure being collected often Manure disposed off site __

_____ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________ ______ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

Comments

Other Areas of ConcernGeneral Comments

____________________________________________________________________________________I

Corrective Actions Required

Install livestock exclusion fencing to keep animals at least ft from surface waters (35ft minimum) The exclusion area should be comprised of native shrubs and trees suited to the soils and hydrology of the site

Install off-stream stock water watering facilities and locate them at least ft from surface to prevent risk of water quality impacts (minimum of 75ft)

Collect manure frequently and store it in a dry covered area with an impervious floor or deck

Apply manure during the growing season at proper rates and times (minimum of 100ft setback from

surface water or the use of a 35ft vegetative buffer)

Site and design confinement and manure storage areas to prevent pollution of surface and ground

Provide heavy use protection in confinement areas and at stock tanks to prevent run-off

Construct stream-crossings and emergency water locations in ways that protect the stream

Other Actions _______________________________________________________________

Photos Taken Yes No Samples Taken Yes No Conservation District Referral

Yes No

General Comments _________________

Appendix 2 What parameters should be monitored to support Source ID

Microbiological Examination Measurements Solids Dissolved Oxygen pH Nitrogen and Phosphorus Measurements Copper Zinc and Hardness Measurements

Microbiological Examination Measurements

Fecal coliform

E coli KES Enterococcus Chloride and Specific Conductance

Fecal wastes carry bacteria that can cause diseases in humans and animals directly by drinking

(gastrointestinal illness) or swimming (ear nose throat and skin infections) Indirect contact by

eating contaminated food (shellfish) and getting contaminated water on your hands can also

cause illness Since there are so many possible disease organisms researchers have tried to find

bacteria organisms that are easily tested and commonly found in fecal wastes There are several

bacteria indicators Each has its own history strength and weakness

Fecal coliform (FC) using both the membrane filter (MF) and most probable number (MPN)

methods FC is a family of indicator bacteria for manure and fecal wastes sources but also

decaying vegetation FC is the indicator used in Washington State Water Quality Standards to

determine the primary and secondary water contact recreation use of freshwater and primary

contact recreation in marine waters The MF method is quicker and provides better precision

The MPN method is more conservative and is compatible with FDA and Washington

Department of Health Shellfish Protection Program regulations for shellfish harvest areas

E coli is a more specific test for fecal sources from warm-blooded animals and is recommended

by EPA as a superior indicator organism in freshwater

KES (Klebsiella Enterobacter and Serratia) confirms what portion of the FC count is from

vegetative sources

Enterococcus is another group of fecal bacteria within the fecal streptococcus group EPA now

recommends Entercoccus for measuring marine water sanitation for secondary contact

recreation The FCfecal streptococcus ratio was popular at one time to try and differentiate

between human and animal wastes Researchers generally found the ratio works only if samples

are collected close to a fresh source of fecal material

Chloride and Specific Conductance measurements are used to track potential sources of

wastes The background levels in rivers and streams in western Washington are fairly low until

estuarine environments are encountered The measurements will not change unless sources with

higher or lower levels are added to the waterway Liquid wastes like sewage and manure have

high concentrations of chloride and high specific conductance readings When a significant

source of wastes is discharged into the waterway the increase in the chloride and specific

conductance is observable downstream and becomes stronger closer to the source

Solids Measurements

Total suspended solids Total non-volatile suspended solids Total volatile suspended solids Turbidity

Erosion of sediment into waterways is a natural process but too much sediment in waterways

can be the result of poor land management practices Suspended solids and sediment can directly

harm aquatic organisms by damaging gills of swimming organisms and suffocating organisms

living on the bed of the stream lake or estuary Suspended solids can also interfere with feeding

behavior and movement of aquatic organisms and block light penetration into the water Also

sediments and other solids transport other pollutants like bacteria oils pesticides and

phosphorus that bind to solids particles Other solids in the water column besides sediment are

organic materials from plants algae or other tissues growing in the water or materials that are

mechanically broken-down by biological chemical and physical processes in the water An

excessive amount of algae or sediment in the water column can be a problem for heat retention

light penetration visibility for swimming and boating safety and aesthetic enjoyment The

problem of suspended sediment and solids in the water column is one of both intensity of the

concentration and the duration that intensity is maintained

Total suspended solids is a measurement of the amount of material in the water column that is

retained when the sample is filtered The measurement can then be used to estimate the pounds

or tons of material being transported Depending upon the species and life-stage of the fish

concentrations as low as 10 mgL ndash 20 mgL over months of time can result in sub-lethal effects

like interference with feeding behavior hatching rates growth rates and disease resistance

Months at 100 mgL and weeks or a few days of concentrations above 1000 mgl could be lethal

to a majority of a local aquatic community

Total non-volatile suspended solids measures the portion of the suspended material that is not

organic (by burning the sample in an oven) ndash mainly sediment materials By subtracting the non-

volatile portion from the total suspended portion the organic or total volatile suspended solids

fraction is found

Turbidity is a measure of transparency of the water in nephelometic turbidity units (NTUs) It is

regulated in the Washington State Water Quality Standards by reference to a control sample

upstream of a source (not more than 5 or 10 NTUs over background) Particles that float or sink

easily are not adequately measured by turbidity procedures If the particles are suspended

uniformly and suspended solid particles are not too heavy or light turbidity can be highly

correlated with total suspended solids

Dissolved Oxygen pH Nitrogen and Phosphorus Measurements

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) pH Nitrogen (ammonia nitrate-nitrite total N) Phosphorus (total P and soluble reactive P)

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is regulated primarily to ensure fish survival Washington State Water

Quality Standards are very salmon oriented Since salmon spawn in gravels the DO

concentrations required in the water column are high to keep salmon eggs and embryos in the

gravels aerated Since DO levels in a healthy water body naturally swings to a maximum

concentration during the day and a minimum at night the one-day minimum concentration is

regulated but the range between the maximum and minimum is also of interest The one-day

minimum concentration allowed is 8 mgL for salmon migration rearing and spawning

However DO in some salmon areas cannot go below 95 mgL Warm water fisheries without

salmon only require 65 mgL DO (none of these have been designated yet) Maximum and

minimum DO concentrations are affected by reaeration temperature biological activity and

chemical reactions Turbulent shallow water will increase mixing with the atmosphere and raise

DO concentrations slow and deep water will not mix as well and can have lower DO Higher

temperatures will increase oxygen movement from the water to the atmosphere and decrease DO

in the water

Algal growth stimulated by nutrients will increase DO concentrations in the daylight as algae

produce oxygen and decrease DO concentrations at night as algae respire As bacteria

breakdown organic materials they use oxygen

pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion activity in the water Water bodies usually have a neutral

pH near 7 units Under acidic conditions pH moves down the scale to 65 units or less Basic

conditions cause the pH to rise to 8 or 9 units Surface waters in Washington generally fall within

the 65 ndash 85 unit Water Quality Standards This range is considered healthy for aquatic

organisms and prevents some metals from disassociating and becoming toxic to aquatic

organisms Higher pH values also increase the unionization of ammonia ndash increasing its toxicity

The pH is moderated in freshwater by carbonate reactions If CO2 is produced by bacterial

decomposition of organic material algal respiration or interchange with the atmosphere then

pH will drop As carbonates are formed from geochemical sources or algal productivity then the

pH will rise

Nitrogen and its compounds are present in most plant and animal materials and consequently are

present in decaying matter Waters draining agricultural areas may contain high levels of the

different forms of nitrogen Ammonia in large quantities is toxic to aquatic life and levels should

generally be lt002 mgL in non polluted freshwater [Note If stormwater discharges directly or

indirectly to nutrient-impaired marine water then nitrogen measurements will be important]

Phosphorus is an essential plant nutrient and may be limiting factor for plant growth in

freshwater In comparison to other major nutritional and structural components in biota

phosphorus is rarely found in significant concentrations in surface waters for two reasons there

is only a relatively small amount available in the hydrosphere and what is available is actively

taken up by plants As with nitrogen waters draining agricultural areas may contain high levels

of the different forms of phosphorus and can be a major pollutant that leads to eutrophication

processes [Note Phosphorus is closely associated with sediments It can absorb to sediments in

overland flow processes and especially in erosional processes]

Copper Zinc and Hardness Measurements

Copper and zinc are common heavy metal constituents of water and are essential for all plant

and animal life However research has well established that higher levels of dissolved copper

and zinc can be toxic to aquatic organisms including salmon Copper sulfate is used in a wide

range of application products in agriculture such as fungicides pesticides and herbicides Zinc

is present in fertilizers and animal feeds and mineral premixes Copper and zinc are normally

measured as both the total and dissolved fraction

Hardness is a measure of dissolved minerals in water such as aluminum calcium iron and

magnesium although it is mostly determined by the sum of calcium and magnesium The

toxicity of most heavy metals including copper and zinc in freshwater is a function of hardness

Appendix 3 An example of an Implementation Monitoring Form

See separate email attachment for this pdf

Appendix B Funding Opportunities

Program Name Primary Program Objective Allocation Administrator BMP Implementation Funding

Environmental Quality Incentives Program

Best management practices on farmland

Landowner enrollment

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program

Riparian protection and restoration on farmland

FSA WSCC conservation districts

NAWCA Standard Grants Waterfowl habitat restoration

National competition

Wetland Reserve Easement Program

Wetland protection and restoration on farmland

Direct Legislative Appropriation

Varies State Agency Local Government

Varies

Centennial Grants Nonpoint source pollution control projects

Local Government special purpose districts CDs tribes

Ecology

Section 319 Grants Nonpoint source pollution control projects

Local Government special purpose districts tribes

Ecology

Shellfish Grants Financial incentives for implementation of BMPs associated with nutrient management and ocean acidification

WSCC conservation districts

Non-Shellfish Grants Financial incentives for BMP implementation

Puget Sound RCPP Technical assistance and financial incentives for targeted BMP implementation

Landowner enrollment project lead

WSCC NRCS

Private Philanthropic Farmland protection and natural resource conservation

Local competition Counties Conservation Districts

Other Public Sector Farmland protection and natural resource conservation

Local competition Counties cities conservation districts

The 2002 farm bill substantially increased funding levels for conservation programs

and established the new Conservation Security Program How can the American

public and legislators know the money will be well spent A new projectmdashthe

Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)mdashwill provide the agricultural

community the public and others involved with environmental policy issues an

accounting of the benefits obtained from these conservation program costs

Now the question How will CEAP be implemented

MJ Mausbach and AR Dedrick

we goMEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF CONSERVATION PRACTICES

Maurice J Mausbach is the deputy chief for the Soil Survey and Resource Assessment at the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation

Service in Washington DC Allen R Dedrick is the deputy administrator for the Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems in Beltsville Maryland

The length

Conservation practices are designed to reduce losses of soil nutrients pestishycides pathogens and other biologishy

cal and chemical materials from agriculturshyal lands conserve natural resources enhance the quality of the agro-ecosystem and enhance wildlife habitat The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002mdashreferred to as the 2002 farm billmdash substantially increased funding levels of conservation programsmdashup nearly 80 pershycent above the level set for conservation under the 1996 farm billWhile it is wideshyly recognized that these conservation proshy

grams will protect millions of acres the environmental benefits have not previousshyly been quantified for reporting at the national scale Moreover while an extenshysive body of literature exists on the effects of conservation practices at the field level there are few research studies designed to measure the larger effects

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) are working together on the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) to quantify the environmental benefits of conservation practices at the national and watershed-scales as a measure for how the money being spent is meeting the goals

CEAP is an on-going mix of data colshylection model development model applishycation and research One of the goals is to develop the appropriate databases and applications over the course of the project It is anticipated that some of the new indishycators and performance measures will be included in the 2006 and 2007 annual reports and that the 2008 annual report will include more accurate estimates for the chosen performance measures

There are two main components of

CEAPmdasha national assessment provides modeled estimates of conservation benefits for annual reporting and the second comshyponent quantifies the environmental beneshyfits from specific conservation practices at a watershed scaleThe assessment provides an accounting of the environmental benefits obtained from USDA conservation proshygram expenditures for farmers and ranchshyers landowners conservationists the pubshylic Congress Office of Management and Budget or others involved with environshymental policy issues The second composhynentmdashthe watershed scale approachmdashproshyvides detailed landscape-specific assessshyments of environmental benefits that are not possible at the national level

THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT

The purpose of the national assessment is to estimate environmental benefits for consershyvation practices implemented in each year allowing benefits to be tracked over time This will also allow for direct comparisons between benefits obtained and program expenditures year-by-year Benefits will be in terms of physical measures such as tons of soil saved reductions in in-stream nutri-

THE SCOPE OF CEAP What conservation programs does it cover bull Environmental Quality Incentive Program

(EQIP) bull Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) bull Conservation Security Program (CSP) bull Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)

bull NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance Program (CTAP)

bull Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) Conservation practices to be emphasized bull Conservation buffers bull Nutrient management bull Pest management bull Tillage management bull Irrigation- drainage- manure- and

grazing-management practices bull Establishment of wildlife habitat bull Wetland protection and restoration Resource concerns Environmental benefits will be estimated for each of the five resource concerns that conservation programs are designed to address bull Water quality (nutrient pesticide

and sediment delivery to lakes rivers and streams)

bull Soil quality (including soil erosion and carbon storage)

bull Water conservation (including flood and drought protection)

bull Air quality (including particulates and odors)

bull Wildlife habitat (including aquatic and terrestrial habitats)

Agricultural land use categories Benefits will be estimated separately for four agricultural land use categories bull Cropland including cropland enrolled in

CRP bull Grazing lands bull Agro-forestry lands bull Wetlands

S|O 2004 VOLUME 59 NUMBER 5 97A

CEAP GOES ACROSS AGENCIES AND GROUPS CEAP is a multi-agency effort that will also include involvement

from groups outside of the Federal government The US

Department of Agriculture (USDA) collaborators in addition

to NRCS and ARS include Farm Service Agency (FSA) Coopshy

erative State Research Education and Extension Service

(CSREES) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and

Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis (ORACBA)

The core group of USDA agencies will coordinate with other

Federal agencies involved in natural resource issues such

as the Forest Service (FS) Economic Research Service (ERS)

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and US

Geological Survey (USGS) to seek opportunities for further

collaboration

A national panel consisting of experts not directly involved

in the projectmdashincluding representatives outside of govshy

ernmentmdashwill be established to provide guidance and recshy

ommendations on CEAP

Forums and workshops will be held periodically to obtain

comments and suggestions from academic institutions

state agencies private organizations and the public on the

analytical approach and findings Professional societies

meetings will also provide an important forum for the

exchange of information and ideas For example the fourth

annual joint symposium of Soil Water Conservation Society

(SWCS) and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) ldquoAssessshy

ment of Measurements of Conservationrdquo was presented during

the 2003 annual meetings of the SWCS and SSSA

This initial meeting was so successful that the fifth annual

joint symposium of the SWCS and SSSA during 2004 was

expanded to ldquoAssessment of Effectiveness of Conservation

Practices in North America Including Watershed Case Studiesrdquo

SWCS SSSA Canadian Society of Soil Science and the

Mexican Soil Science Society will sponsor the 2004 fifth

joint symposium At this meeting we will have American

Canadian and Mexican soil scientists that will interact and

talk about how to assess conservation practices throughshy

out North America

ent and sediment concentrations etc A literature review will be the first step

of the national assessment ARS and NRCS will organize with the help from the Soil and Water Conservation Society a review of research literature and prepare a summary report on what is known about the environmental effects of conshyservation practices at both the field and modeling for environmental credit trading watershed scale Initially the ARS from 1993 to the present National Agricultural Library will prepare The summary report will establish the a set of abstracts from the published litershy state-of-the-science of benefits derived ature on environmental effectsresults from conservation practices and conseshyfrom USDA conservation programs from quently will establish the scientific undershy1985 to the present for each of the five pinning for the national assessment Also resource concerns (water quality soil qualshy this report will identify the gaps in scienshyity water conservation air quality and tific understanding that need to be wildlife habitat)The set will also contain addressed to fully be able to quantify envishyabstracts about studies on implementation ronmental benefits Workshops will pro-barriers and incentives and research needs vide the content for a synopsis of findings from 1985 to the present and data and by resource concern Scientists and techshy

nical experts from Federal and state agenshycies universities and consultant organizashytions will be invited to participate in these workshops which are currently being planned for 2005

Initially CEAP will focus on water quality soil quality and water conservation on cropland and land enrolled in CRP reflecting the availability of research findshyings national-level databases and non-point source modeling capabilities During the second year expert teams will be formed to identify the appropriate

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION S|O 200498A

indicators and performance factors for estimating the environmental benefits from grazing lands and wetlands as well as benefits to wildlifeThese teams will idenshytify the data needs and develop modeling approaches needed to estimate environshymental benefits at the national level

Modeling capabilities and databases will be enhanced for all estimates throughout and initial estimates will be revised to reflect the improved modeling capabilities and information developed during the project

The national assessment for cropland will be built using existing modeling capashybilities This assessment will connect the conservation practice with the estimates

OBJECTIVES FOR THE ARS BENCHMARK WATERSHEDS There are five specific objectives for the 12 ARS

Benchmark watershed assessment studies

1 Assess water quality water conservation and

soil quality effects and benefits of conservashy

tion practices at the watershed scale and

begin investigations into how to quantify

wildlife and air quality benefits beyond the

edge of the farm field Assessments will

include estimates of uncertainties associated

with achieving targeted improvements such

as water quality standards Practice costs

and cost efficiencies will also be evaluated as

part of the watershed assessment Some

watersheds will address all resource conshy

cerns while others will be focused primarily

on one or two resource concerns

2 Develop a set of regional watershed assessment

models that can be used to address benefits

of conservation practices and other environshy

mental issues in the major agricultural

regions of the nation and for use in future

watershed and national assessments

3Develop water quality water conservation

and soil quality databases that can be used

to evaluate effects of conservation practices

and to compile air quality and wildlife habitat

data for future assessment These databases

will be used periodically to validate and enhance

the models used in the watershed and national

assessments and to validate and verify the

regionalized models

4Develop indicators or performance measures

for documenting water quality soil quality air

quality and aquatic and terrestrial habitat

benefits associated with conservation practices

5 Expand research on the effects of conservation

practices at the watershed scale for different

soils climates topography farming practices

cropping systems and other land uses

for reductions in nutrient pesticide and soil losses improvements in water quality and water use efficiency and enhancement of soil quality

The data

A sampling and modeling approach will provide the basis for estimating reductions in sediment nutrients and pesticides from farm fields increased water use efficiency and enhancement of soil quality A simushylation model will be built on the National Resources Inventory (NRI)The NRI is a scientifically based survey designed to assess conditions and trends of soil water and related resources of the Nationrsquos non-federal lands In the past the NRI has been conducted at five-year intervals but is currently in transition to an annual cycle of data collection (Goebel 1998)

(For more information see wwwnrcsusdagovtechnicalNRI)

While the NRI is designed to provide statistical information on the natural resources on private lands it can also be used as an analytical framework for simulashytion modeling (Goebel and Kellogg 2002) NRCS has previously made extensive use of the NRI as an analytical framework for modeling to address issues related to natushyral resources and agriculture

A subset of about 30000 NRI cropland sample points will be necessary for conshystructing the simulation model for the national assessment on cropland For these sample points a farmer survey is being implemented to obtain the additional information needed for the fate and transshyport process model such as crops grown tillage nutrient and pesticide applications and conservation practices implemented A separate set of about 10000 sample points will be selected and surveys conshyducted over 4 yearsmdash2003 2004 2005

WATERSHED ASSESSMENT STUDIES There are seven major questions that will be

addressed by in the watershed assessment

studies

1 What are the measurable effects of agriculshy

tural conservation and management pracshy

tices on ground andor surface water qualishy

ty and other environmental effects at the

watershed scale

2 Within the hydrologic and geomorphic setshy

ting of a watershed how does the timing

and location of a suite of conservation pracshy

tices affect water quality or other environshy

mental effects

3 What is the appropriate time scale to expect

changes in surface or ground water condishy

tions and other environmental effects from

conservation practices

4 What are the uncertainties associated with

achieving these water quality and other

environmental effects from conservation

practices

5 What social and economic factors within the

study watershed facilitate or impede impleshy

mentation of conservation practices

6 What are the relationships among agricultural

conservation and management practices

implemented in a given watershed with

respect to their impact on water quality and

other environmental effects Are the effects

additive Multiplicative Contradictory

Independent

7 What is the optimal collection and placement

of conservation management practices in a

watershed to achieve water quality and

other environmental goals

and 2006 The final dataset is obtained by pooling the samples for the four years For the 2006 annual report model results for the first three years will be used

NRCS is collaborating with NASS and FSA to conduct the farmer survey In the fall workers will interview farm operators to obtain field-specific data associated with the selected sample points Questions are asked about physical characteristics of the field and conservation practices associshyated with the field for the most recent three years The local NRCS field office will provide information on the operatorrsquos participation in conservation programs conservation practices associated with the field and resource concerns

When the data collection is completed NRCS will release summaries of the full

set of survey results at an appropriate level of aggregation for use by other researchers Since the sample frame is based on the NRI pointsmdashwhich are geospatially locat-edmdashNRCS will explore possibilities for summarizing the results of the survey for large watersheds and ecosystems in addishytion to national-level summaries

Modeling benefits for cropland

Estimates for each sample point will be generated using the field-level physical process model called EPICmdashthe erosion-productivity impact calculator EPIC is a continuous simulation model that can be used to determine the effect of manageshyment strategies on agricultural production and soil and water resources EPIC was initially developed to assess the effect of

soil erosion on soil productivity (Williams et al 1984) Since then the model has been expanded and refined to allow simushylation of many processes important in agricultural management as well as fate and transport of potential pollutants such as nitrogenphosphorous soil erosion salt and pesticides EPIC operates on a daily time step integrating daily weather data soil characteristics farming operations such as planting tillage and nutrient applications and a plant growth model to simulate the growth and harvest of a crop All farming operations that take place on the field throughout the year are taken into account On a daily basis EPIC tracks the moveshyment of water the cycling of nitrogen phosphorus and carbon and water induced soil erosion The drainage area considered by EPIC is generally a homogeneous field-sized area of up to about 100 ha (250 ac) Model outputs represent pollutant and water movement to the bottom of the root zone and edge of the field A wide variety of soil weather and cropping practice data input options allow simulation of most crops on virtually any soil and climate combination

For more information on how EPIC simshyulates the various processes see wwwbrctamuseduepicdocumentation

The final step in the calculation of conshyservation benefits is to multiply the per-acre estimates of reductions in soil eroshysion nutrients and pesticides from farm fields increased water use efficiency and enhancement of soil quality from the EPIC model by official USDA accounting records on the number of acres of pracshytices implemented from the EQIP pracshytice database the NRCS Performance Results System database or FSAs database on CRP enrollments The calculation will be done on a regional basis to account for regional differences in per-acre estimates The calculation will be done for each year providing a time series of national estimates of reductions in soil erosion nutrients and pesticides from farm fields increased water use efficiency and enhancement of soil quality associated with conservation practices implemented each year

Water quality benefits will also be assessed at the eight-digit hydrologic unit code watershed scale using a combination of models and databases called HUMUS

which stand for Hydrologic Unit Modeling for the United States (Arnold et al 1998) HUMUS includes databases on land use and sources of nonpoint and point source pollutants that are used with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) modelwhich simulates the transshyport of water from the land to receiving streams and routes the flow downstream to the next watershed and ultimately to the oceans and estuaries Outputs from the EPIC model runs will be combined with HUMUS databases and the SWAT watershed model to estimate in-stream concentrations of nutrients and sediment at the outlet of each watershed in agriculshytural regions This will allow estimation of the reduction in in-stream concentrations attributable to implementation of conservashytion practices Other outcome measures are also possible such as 1) reductions in the number of days during the year that in-stream nitrogen concentrations exceed the drinking-water-standard and 2) reductions in the number of days during the warm summer months that in-stream nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations exceed critical thresholds related to algal blooms and eutrophication (For more information on HUMUS see srphbrctamuseduhumus for more information on the SWAT model see wwwbrctamuseduswat)

To assure that the national assessment is based on the best possible models and fully captures the existing research findshyings on the environmental effects of conshyservation practices a component of the national assessment will focus on model evaluation and will make recommendashytions on enhancements that are needed

WATERSHED ASSESSMENT COMPONENT

The watershed assessment studies component of CEAP complements the national assessshyment by providing more in-depth assessment of water quality and other benefits at a finer scale of resolution than is possible for the national assessmentAn extensive body of litshyerature exists that describes plot or field-scale conservation practices aimed at protecting water quality and in some cases improving soil quality or enhancing water conservation (Hapeman et al 2003 Hatfield et al 2001 Howell 2001 and Sharpley et al 2003) However research results from plot- and

field-scale studies are limited in that they canshynot capture the complexities and interactions of conservation practices within a watershed

Which watersheds

Only a few watersheds will be selected for study No attempt will be made to aggreshygate estimates of benefits for the watershyshed studies to represent national-level estimates since too many watersheds would be needed to properly represent the various environmental and resource-based characteristics in the country The objecshytive is to select watersheds where there is on-going research that includes either monitoring modeling or both in agriculshytural areas with databases and resource concerns (Hatfield et al 2000 2002) Funding and assistance will be provided to adapt and augment the existing watershed models and databases for the specific purshypose of evaluating environmental benefits associated with implementation of consershyvation practices

There are three categories of watershed studies that will be conducted as part of the CEAPmdashARS ldquobenchmarkrdquo watersheds ldquospecial emphasisrdquowatersheds and a collecshytion of watershed case studies funded through a competitive grants program by Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES) and NRCS

The first set of watersheds is the ARS ldquobenchmarkrdquo watersheds where ARS has conservation effects research projects underway These are primarily long-term research sites where it is anticipated that watershed-scale research and assessment will be continued over many years Most of these already have water resource and soil quality research projects underway Development of the regional watershed models will be associshyated primarily with the ARS research watershysheds The ARS watersheds contribution to CEAP became fully operational on January 1 2004 (For information on the present research being conducted on the ARS watershysheds see the Water Quality and Management National Program at wwwarsusdagovresearchprograms)

The 12 ARS benchmark watersheds are located near Ames IowaTifton Georgia El Reno Oklahoma Temple Texas Oxford Mississippi University Park Pennsylvania Columbia Missouri West Lafayette Indiana and Columbus Ohio

(See map of the ARS benchmark watershysheds) In addition to these ARS locations scientists from Ft Collins Colorado are assisting with a portion of the modeling activities Environmental effects will be estimated for water quality soil quality and water conservation These watersheds repshyresent primarily rainfed or non-irrigated cropland ARS anticipates selecting addishytional benchmark watersheds in 2005 and 2006 that represent irrigated cropland and grazing lands The ARS project plan for the 12-benchmark watersheds will undershy

go comprehensive scientific peer-review The ARS Benchmark watersheds will

also focus on field data collection along with laboratory data management issues ARS Benchmark watersheds will provide information needed to verify the accuracy of models used to conduct the national assessment In the first phase of the watershyshed assessments both the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and the Annualized Agricultural Non-Point Source (AnnAGNPS) models will be utishylized to conduct comparative evaluations

of environmental benefits associated with conservation practices

One of the goals of the ARS benchshymark watersheds is to develop a set of USDA Watershed Assessment Models that can address environmental quality assessshyments for specific regions of the nation Although the USDA Watershed Assessment Models will be designed to primarily address the watershed scales the set of regionalized models will also be able to evaluate conservation-planning measshyures at the field scale on a preliminary

CONSERVATION EFFECTS

ASSESSMENT PROJECT

(CEAP) WATERSHED STUDIES

COMPONENT 2004

assessment basis as requested by USDA agencies such as NRCS and Farm Services Agency (FSA) Currently these technologies have not been integrated into a unified tool for application by action agencies The integration of these technologies into a unified USDA Watershed Assessment Model will provide an opportunity to perform watershed analyses of conservation practices beyond water quality impacts

The second set of watersheds is called ldquospecial emphasisrdquo watershedsThese have been selected to address specific resource concerns over a 2-3 year period of time Two specific concerns to be addressed by these watershed studies are manure manshyagement from animal feeding operations and water use on irrigated cropland Other issues of concern that may be addressed are drainage management pracshytices declining surface or groundwater supplies flood control structures or resershyvoirs wetland construction and rehabilitashytion or other special land use activities that relate to the management and operashytion of primarily cropland (irrigated and rainfed) watersheds Special emphasis watersheds selected for study beginning in 2004 include

1 Choptank River in Maryland 2 Maumee River-Upper Tiffin River

in Michigan 3 Maumee River-Upper Auglaize

River in Ohio 4 Upper Snake Rock Creek in Idaho 5 Cheney Lake in Kansas 6 Upper Klamath Lakes in Oregon 7 North Bosque River in Texas 8 Stemple Creek in California The third set of watersheds will be

selected through the CSREES Water Quality Initiative Competitive Grants Program This program will sponsor a collection of watershed case studies that will explicitly investigate the linkages among a variety of conservation and land management practices as implemented over space and time and the resultant effects on water quality The ultimate goal of the program is to understand how to optimally locate and schedule the implementation of conservation practices within a watershed in order to achieve locally defined water quality goals The request for applications responds to the need to conduct research

that evaluates the interactions among conshyservation practices and their biophysical setshyting on water quality at the watershed scale The request for applications became availshyable in 2004 and is sponsored by CSREES and NRCS for approximately $3 million dollars Four to six watershed projects will receive funding each year for up to three yearsThe four watersheds selected for study in 2004 include

1 Paradise Creek watershed in Idaho 2 Rock Creek watershed in Ohio 3Three small watersheds in Iowa 4 Little Bear River watershed in Utah

Conclusion

The 2002 farm bill substantially increased funding levels for existing conservation programs and established the Conservation Security Program (CSP) NRCS and ARS have joined together in collaboration with other Federal agencies and universities to initiate studies that will quantify the envishyronmental benefits of conservation pracshytices implemented through these proshygrams A national assessment is being implemented to track environmental benshyefits over time at the national scale In selected regions watershed studies are being initiated to provide more in-depth assessments at a finer scale of resolution This national effort will advance the knowledge of how watershed scale assessshyments should be done and provide addishytional research findings and insights on the expected off-site effects of conservation practices Annual reports that document the environmental benefits of conservashytion practices will be published beginning in 2006 Tracking the progress of consershyvation programs in terms of the outcomes achieved will allow policymakers and proshygram managers to improve the effectiveshyness of existing programs and design new programs to increase the conservation of our nations natural resources

Endnote

This paper was presented at two symposia events held at the 2003 annual conferences of the Soil Water Conservation Society in Spokane Washington July 28 2003 and at the Soil Science Society of America in Denver Colorado November 3 2003 Together these two symposia that addressed the effectiveness of conservation practices

mark the fourth annual joint symposium organized by the two societies and presented at both societiesrsquo annual meetings

References Cited

Goebel JJ 1998 The National Resources Inventory

and Its Role in US Agriculture Pp181-192 In

Agricultural Statistics 2000 International Statistical

InstituteVoorburgThe Netherlands

Goebel JJ and RLKellogg2002Using Survey Data

and Modeling to Assist the Development of Agri-

Environmental Policy Pp 695ndash704 In Conference

on Agricultural and Environmental Statistical

Applications in Rome National Statistical Institute

of Italy Rome Italy

Hapeman CJ LL McConnell CP Rice AM

SadeghiWF Schmidt GW McCarty JL Starr PJ

Rice JT Angier and JA Harman-Fetcho 2003

Current US Department of Agriculture - Agrishy

cultural Research Service Research on Undershy

standing Agrochemical Fate and Transport to Prevent

and Mitigate Adverse Environmental Impacts Pest

Management Science 59 (6-7)681-690

Hatfield JL TJ Sauer and JH Prueger 2001

Managing soils to achieve greater water use effishy

ciencyA reviewAgronomy Journal 93(2)271-280

Hatfield JLDABucks and MLHorton 2000The

Midwest water quality initiative Research experishy

ences at multiple scales Pp 232-247 In Agroshy

chemical Fate and Movement Perspective and

Scale of Study (TR Steinheimer LJ Ross and

TD Spittler eds) American Chemical Society

Washington DC

Hatfield JL DA Bucks EE Albert RH Dowdy

NR Fausey and JL Schepers 2002Assessment of

the Water Quality Impacts of Farming Systems by

Integrating Databases and Simulation Models

Proceedings National Water Quality Monitoring

Council May 20-23 2002 Madison Wisconsin

CD-ROM

Howell TA 2001 Enhancing water use efficiency

in irrigated agriculture Agronomy Journal

93(2)281-289

Sharpley AN T Daniel T Sims J Lemunyon R

Stevens and R Parry 2003 Agricultural

Phosphorus and Eutrophication - Second Edition

US Department of Agriculture Agricultural

Research Service ARS-129 September 2003

Williams JR CA Jones and PT Dyke 1984 A

modeling approach to determining the relationship

between erosion and soil productivityTransaction

of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers

27129-144

Reprinted from the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Volume 59 Number 5

Copyright copy 2004 Soil and Water Conservation Society S|O 2004 VOLUME 59 NUMBER 5 103A

WashingtonDiscoveryFarmsProgramSummary This is a brief summary of development for the Discovery Farms program for Washington State

Discovery Farms

The Discovery Farms model was originated by the University of Wisconsin as a way to better understand the impact of on‐farm practices on water quality through applied field‐level research outreach and understanding efforts It is a producer led and results oriented program

A Discovery Farm is an operating farm cooperatively participating in an on‐farm systems researchevaluationdemonstration project The goal of the Discovery Farm programs is to

Increase understanding of agricultural impacts on water quality and work toward reducing adverse impacts though a collaborative approach

Integrate outreach and research programs with environmental management and regulatory efforts

Provide research‐based information on agricultural production and natural resource management to public policymakers

Promote the economic viability of agriculture across diverse livestock and cropping systems

Discovery Farm Engagement

A farm that volunteers andor is selected to be a Discovery Farm agrees to certain set of parameters These parameters will be outlined in a contact of work to protect both the DF and the Research Team

A Discovery Farm (DF) will Work with the DF Research Team to come up with a research plan including practices to be

installed and QAPP for conducting needed research on farm Work cooperatively with the Research Team to install and maintain agreed upon practices or

management strategies Allow installation of equipment necessary to accomplish research tasks This may include

surface runoff monitoring station(s) weather station and other agreed upon equipment Allow access for monitoring and equipment maintenance for the length of research contract Agree to a data sharing agreement (TBD) for appropriate use of data collected on‐site Actively engage in data assessment and practice modification Be open to educational opportunities to share information with other produces in the area

Discovery Farms Organization

The Discovery Farm model is organized with a central voting Steering Committee composed of farmers and industry representatives that provides input on research needs identifies project possibilities selects projects for funding and solicitsselects farms for implementation of projects A secondary non‐voting component of the Committee provides input and guidance on topics and projects as appropriate A producer selected to be a Discovery Farm is supported by a Local Advisory Committee chaired by the producer Working with the producer the Advisory Committee which is composed of neighboring

farms consultants Extension Conservation District NRCS and other local agencies will implement the project monitor progress collect and analyze data discuss results and disseminate findings

The Discovery Farms model benefits farms by giving them a trusted model and process to select implement and share practices and research It also recognizes cooperators as leaders and innovators in their industry Since it is producer led it ensures relevancy participation and applicability of work conducted A pooled funding structure with multiple funding sources gives flexibility to the process and allows various types of projects to be conducted as deemed relevant by the Steering Committee

Discovery Farms Summary Points

Uniform structure of conducting researchdemonstrations on farms across Washington State Can be implemented with all forms of crop and livestock based agriculture Farmer led process Steering Committee composed of voting members (ie producers industry Conservation

Districts) and non‐voting advisory members (ie University regulatory agencies NRCS Dept of Ag environmental groups etc)

Research projects and Discovery Farms chosen by Steering Committee Local Advisory Committee (producer chair neighboring farms consultants Extension

Conservation District NRCS and other local agencies) oversees progress implementation and monitoring of local projects

Data is shared in a timely manner via a website tours field days seminars and publications Strong outreach and education component of program Funded by multiple agencies industry and other pooled sources

Discovery Farms Site Establishment

Discovery Farm sites can be established as individual sites or as a watershed cluster and as a standard site (no treatment effect just monitor current practices) or as a special site (impose and test specific practices against a control) All options will yield beneficial results in unique ways and help improve practice implementation and management in an area

The greater the number of Discovery Farm sites established in an area (ie watershed county District Region) the better the overall results All sites are set up in the EXACT same way with a uniform and consistent Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Stand Operating Procedures (SOP) field set ups and equipment sampling protocols and handling procedures data reporting outreach objectives and project administration This is to ensure the highest quality of research being conducted but also to increase the comparability and applicability of sample results over a larger region

Discovery Farms Sampling Focus

At this time Discovery Farms are proposed as surface water sampling sites using Edge‐of‐Field technology but future sampling can be added on approval of the Steering Committee for groundwater air quality soil quality crop production and more The sky (and funding) is the limit

Discovery Farm Site Budget Proposal

The Discovery Farms (DF) program will be funded by pooled dollars from industry and agencies For Washington we are hoping to get a collaborative funding network that can help install new Discovery Farm sites as well as support ongoing monitoring at current DF sites It currently costs approximately $29000 to install a DF site and $10000 for annual maintenance sampling and analysis costs

Discovery Farms Program Partners

The Washington Discovery Farms (DF) program will engage partners both locally and statewide This will include all interested agencies organizations institutions and entities Partners are TBD

Washington Discovery Farms Contact

For questions about Discovery Farms Washington please contact

Nichole Embertson PhD Director Washington Discovery Farms 6975 Hannegan Road Lynden WA 98264 O (360) 526‐2381 x 126 E infowadiscoveryfarmsorg W wwwwadiscoveryfarmsorg

Appendix A_Ag

Appendix A

Pesticides Recs

2

Sheet1

3 (2)

4

5


2

3

3_2

4

4_2

5

5_2

5_3

6

7

7_2

8

8_2

9

9_2

10

11

11_2

11_3

11_4

1 httpwwwnrcsusdagovwpsportalnrcsmainnationaltechnicalnraceap

4 httpsccwagovwpcontentuploads201606TechReportOpportunityAssessmentforTargetedBMPsin

undefined

First Visit Off

Followup Visit Off

Prepared by

Arrival Time

Depart

Date Current Weather Conditions

Name

Street

Email

County

Watershed

General Site description include information on nearby water bodies and description of farm conditions

undefined_2

Comments

Comments_2

3_3

Comments_3

Comments_4

Manure storage properly sized

Manure storage covered

Vegetated buffer when manure is applied

Manure being collected often

Comments_5

Install livestock exclusion fencing to keep animals at least

Install offstream stock water watering facilities and locate them at least


NRCS



Landowner enrollment_2

NAWCA Standard Grants

Waterfowl habitat restoration


USFWS




NRCS_2


Varies

State Agency Local Government

Varies_2

Centennial Grants

Nonpoint source pollution control projects

Ecology

Section 319 Grants

Nonpoint source pollution control projects_2

Ecology_2

Shellfish Grants



NonShellfish Grants

Financial incentives for BMP implementation


Puget Sound RCPP


WSCC NRCS

Private Philanthropic

Local competition

Other Public Sector

Farmland protection and natural resource conservation

Local competition_2